[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58716-58720]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM10-6-000; Order No. 754]

Interpretation of Transmission Planning Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2009, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition requesting approval of NERC's
interpretation of Requirement R1.3.10 of Commission-approved
transmission planning Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 (System
Performance Following Loss of a Single Bulk Electric System Element).
In a March 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission
proposed to reject NERC's proposed interpretation, and instead proposed
an alternative interpretation of Requirement R1.3.10 of Reliability
Standard TPL-002-0. As a result of the comments received in response to
the proposal, the Commission declines to adopt the NOPR proposal and
approves NERC's proposed interpretation. In addition, as proposed by
several commenters, the Commission directs NERC and Commission staff to
initiate a process to identify any reliability issues, as discussed
below.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective October 24,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ron LeComte (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eugene Blick (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lauren Rosenblatt (Legal Information), Office of Enforcement, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 136 FERC ] 61,186

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.
Issued September 15, 2011
    1. On November 17, 2009, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition requesting approval of NERC's
interpretation of Requirement R1.3.10 of Commission-approved
transmission planning Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 (System
Performance Following Loss of a Single Bulk Electric System Element).
In a March 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR),\1\ the Commission
proposed to reject NERC's proposed interpretation, and instead proposed
an alternative interpretation of Requirement R1.3.10 of Reliability
Standard TPL-002-0. As a result of the comments received in response to
the proposal, the Commission declines to adopt the NOPR proposal and
approves NERC's proposed interpretation of Requirement R1.3.10 of
Reliability Standard TPL-002-0. In addition, as proposed by several
commenters, the Commission directs NERC and Commission staff to
initiate a process to identify any reliability issues, as discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interpretation of Transmission Planning Reliability
Standards, 75 FR 14386 (March 25, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,655 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires a
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to
Commission review and approval.\2\ Specifically, the Commission may
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\3\ Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824 (2006).
    \3\ Id. 824o(d)(2).
    \4\ Id. 824o(e)(3).

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

    3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a
process to select and certify an ERO,\5\ and subsequently certified
NERC.\6\ On April 4, 2006, NERC submitted to the Commission a petition
seeking approval of 107 proposed Reliability Standards. On March 16,
2007, the Commission issued a final rule, Order No. 693,\7\ approving
83 of the 107 Reliability Standards, including transmission planning
Reliability Standards TPL-001-0 through TPL-004-0. In addition,
pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA,\8\ the Commission directed
NERC to develop modifications to 56 of the 83 approved Reliability
Standards, including TPL-002-0.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
    \7\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).
    \9\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that a person that is
``directly and materially affected'' by Bulk-Power System reliability
may request an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.\10\ In
response, the ERO will assemble a team with relevant expertise to
address the requested interpretation and also form a ballot pool.
NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that, within 45 days, the team will
draft an interpretation of the reliability standard and submit it to
the ballot pool. If approved by the ballot pool and subsequently by the
NERC Board of Trustees, the interpretation is appended to the
Reliability Standard and filed with the applicable regulatory
authorities for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Reliability Standards
Development Procedure, Version 6.1, at 27-29 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Transmission Planning Reliability Standards

    5. Each of the TPL Reliability Standards, TPL-001-0 through TPL-
004-0, requires the planning authorities and transmission planners
(planner) to provide a ``valid assessment'' that would ``ensure that
reliable systems are developed that meet specified performance
requirements'' both in the near-term (years one through five) and in
the longer-term (years six through ten, or as needed). For each of
these TPL Reliability Standards, entities must adequately assess a
range of operating conditions on their systems and plan to meet certain
performance criteria that the TPL Reliability Standards specify for
each of four classes of contingencies.\11\ The principles that planners
must apply to the design of the assessment and of the supporting
studies are set forth in the Requirements of the specific TPL
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Reliability Standards TPL-001-0 through TPL-004-0 each
includes the same Table I, titled ``Transmission System Standards--
Normal and Emergency Conditions,'' which identifies the classes of
contingencies as Category A through Category D. Reliability Standard
TPL-002-0 addresses Category B contingencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Table I, which is incorporated into each of the TPL Reliability
Standards, sets forth the different types of contingencies that
planners must study in conjunction with critical system conditions. The
performance that must be met before and after experiencing those
contingencies is also defined in the Table I, including reliably
meeting all projected customer demand and firm transfers for Category B
contingencies.
    7. Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 states:

    R1. The Planning Authority and Transmission Planner shall each
demonstrate through a valid assessment that its portion of the
interconnected transmission system is planned such that the Network
can be operated to supply projected customer demands and projected
Firm (non-recallable reserved) Transmission Services, at all demand
levels over the range of forecast system demands, under the
contingency conditions as defined in Category B.[\12\] To be valid,
the Planning Authority and Transmission Planner assessments shall: *
* *.

    \12\ Category B contingencies are defined in Table I of the
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Requirement R1 proceeds with sub-Requirements R1.1 through R1.5,
which provide the criteria that must be met to qualify the assessment
directed by Requirement R1 as valid. In particular, Requirement R1.3
mandates that the assessment shall

    [b]e supported by a current or past study and/or system
simulation testing that addresses each of the following categories,
showing system performance following Category B. The specific
elements selected (from each of the following categories) for
inclusion in these studies and simulations shall be acceptable to
the associated Regional Reliability Organization(s).

    Further, Requirement R1.3.10 requires the planner to

    [i]nclude the effects of existing and planned protection
systems, including any backup or redundant systems.

III. NERC Proposed Interpretation

    9. In the NERC Petition, NERC explained that it received a request
from PacifiCorp for an interpretation of Reliability Standard TPL-002-
0, Requirement R1.3.10, addressing three specific questions. The
PacifiCorp questions and NERC interpretations were as follows:

    Question 1: Does TPL-002-0 R1.3.10 require that all elements
that are expected to be removed from service through normal
operation of the protection systems be removed in simulations?
    Response 1: TPL-002-0 requires that System studies or
simulations be made to assess the impact of single Contingency
operation with Normal Clearing. TPL-002-0, R1.3.10 does require that
all elements expected to be removed from service through normal
operations of the Protection Systems be removed in simulations.
    Question 2: Is a Category B disturbance limited to faults with
[N]ormal [C]learing where the protection system operates as designed
in the time expected with proper functioning of the protection
system(s) or do Category B disturbances extend to protection system
misoperations and failures?
    Response 2: This standard does not require an assessment of the
Transmission System performance due to a Protection System failure
or Protection System misoperation. Protection System failure or
Protection System misoperation is addressed in TPL-003-0--System
Performance following Loss of Two or More Bulk Electric System
Elements (Category C) and TPL-004-0--System Performance Following
Extreme Events Resulting in the Loss of Two or More Bulk Electric
System (BES) Elements (Category D).
    Question 3: Does TPL-002-0, R1.3.10 require that planning for
Category B [C]ontingencies assume a [C]ontingency that results in
something other than a [N]ormal [C]learing event even though the
TPL-002-0 Table I--Category B matrix uses the phrase ``SLG or 3-
Phase Fault, with Normal Clearing?''
    Response 3: TPL-002-0, R1.3.10 does not require simulating
anything other than Normal Clearing when assessing the impact of a
Single Line Ground (SLG) or 3-Phase (3[Oslash]) Fault on the
performance of the Transmission System.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NERC Petition at 10. In support for its request for an
interpretation, PacifiCorp states that ``[i]f TPL-002-0, R1.3.10
requires that planning for Category B Contingencies must assume
failure or misoperation of all existing and planned protection
systems, protection system failures previously identified as
Category C [[Oslash]] Contingencies or Category D [[Oslash]]
Contingencies would now become Category B Contingencies * * *.'' Id.
at Appendix A at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In support of its request for approval, NERC stated that the
proposed interpretation directly supports the reliability purpose of
TPL-002-0 because it clarifies what is required for the ``System
simulations'' cited in the main requirement without expanding

the reach of the standard.\14\ NERC maintained that the proposed
interpretation clearly identifies what needs to be done--that all
elements expected to be removed from service through normal operation
of the protection system must be removed in simulations and that only
normal clearing is required in the simulations. NERC stated that the
proposed interpretation clearly distinguishes that misoperations and
failures of the protection system are not part of Reliability Standard
TPL-002-0, but are addressed in other standards. NERC stated that the
interpretation will result in ensuring that an adequate level of
reliability for the Bulk-Power System will be achieved and maintained
by providing clarity and certainty in support of the objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Commission NOPR

    11. The Commission proposed to reject NERC's proposed
interpretation and proposed an alternative interpretation. The
Commission's proposed interpretation would have required modeling of
the non-operation of non-redundant primary protection systems to be in
compliance with Requirement R1.3.10 of Reliability Standard TPL-002-0.
In the NOPR, the Commission stated that a planner would perform an
assessment of its portion of the interconnected transmission system
through computer modeling and simulations, in which the planner first
creates base cases. Using these base cases as a starting point, the
planner then assesses the performance of the system and tests the base
cases by subjecting them to various Category B Contingencies outlined
in Table I with normal clearing. The Commission's proposed
interpretation would have found that Requirement R1.3.10 of TPL-002-0
requires planners to study, in their system assessments, the non-
operation of non-redundant primary protection systems in order to
ascertain whether and how reliance on the as-designed backup or
redundant protection systems affects reliability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Interpretation of Transmission Planning Reliability
Standards, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,655, at P 15 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Commission proposed that its interpretation of R1.3.10 of
Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 would apply prospectively from the
effective date of any Final Rule and no entity will be subject to
financial penalties for having operated in a manner inconsistent with
this proposed interpretation prior to the effective date of any Final
Rule.

V. Comments

    13. Twenty-seven entities provided comments on the Commission's
proposed interpretation.\16\ Almost uniformly, comments support NERC's
proposed interpretation.\17\ In general, commenters \18\ state that the
non-operation of a primary protection system is not studied under TPL-
002-0, but rather under TPL-003-0 and TPL-004-0 as an unplanned event
with delayed clearing.\19\ Commenters contend that only planned
protection system outages (maintenance outages) should be addressed
under TPL-002-0.\20\ In addition, commenters assert that the
Commission's interpretation would require the installation of fully
redundant protection systems at an estimated cost of $24 billion and
require significant construction efforts spanning 10 to 20 years.\21\
Commenters contend that TPL-002-0 relates to Normal Clearing and not
Delayed Clearing in which a protection system failure has occurred or
fails to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A list of commenters is provided in Appendix 1.
    \17\ Commenters including NERC, Trade Associations (Edison
Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Electric Power Supply
Association, Transmission Access Policy Study Group, and Canadian
Electricity Association), Florida Reliability Coordinating Council
and others indicate support for NERC's interpretation of Requirement
R1.3.10 of TPL-002-0. In contrast, the International Transmission
Companies (ITC) commented that the Commission's proposal
``establishes an additional level of good utility practice'' and
``is a reasonable and rational approach to evaluate system
consequences, under Requirement R1.3.10 of TPL-002-0, regarding
element outages and clearing times associated with non-operation of
the primary protection system.'' However, given the corrective
actions that would be required to comply with the Commission's
proposal, ITC requests that the Commission allow an appropriate
amount of time for compliance.
    \18\ See, e.g., NERC comments at 7-8; Trade Association Comments
at 19-23.
    \19\ Planned outages are modeled as one of the base case
conditions (categories) and studied to achieve the performance
requirements of Category B (single contingencies), Table I.
Protection system failures are addressed by performance requirements
of Category C (two or more contingencies) and misoperations are
addressed by Category D (extreme events).
    \20\ Requirement R.1.3.12 of TPL-002-0 requires the planner to
consider the planned (including maintenance) outage of protection
systems at demand levels for which such outages are performed.
    \21\ See Trade Associations comments at 31-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. NERC explains that the pre-2007 voluntary transmission planning
standard was broken into four mandatory Version 0 Standards linked by
the performance categories of Table I. Thus, according to NERC, some
continuity was lost and, as a result, sub-requirements such as
Requirement R1.3.10 that appear in TPL-002-0 through TPL-004-0 have
very limited applicability in the context of TPL-002-0. NERC explains
that Requirement R1.3.10 of TPL-002-0 is a valid requirement for
judging system performance, but only in those cases where the system is
being studied to determine its ability to perform when a given primary
protection system or one of its components is out of service for
maintenance (Requirement R1.3.12).

A. Supplemental Comments

    15. The Trade Associations submitted supplemental comments, with
additional comments in support filed by NERC. The Trade Associations
reiterate their request that the Commission approve, without change,
NERC's proposed interpretation of Reliability Standard TPL-002-0
Requirement R1.3.10. The Trade Associations also state that, based on
outreach meetings with Commission staff, there may be a system
protection issue that merits further exploration by technical experts.
Thus, the Trade Associations suggest that the Commission take the
following two actions. First, instruct Commission Reliability Staff to
meet with NERC and its appropriate subject matter experts to: (a)
Explore Staff's concerns and identify whether there is a further system
protection issue warranting additional actions, and (b) if so, define
the issue's scope and assess its importance. The Trade Associations
state such exchange of views among technical experts would be intended
to facilitate the subject matter experts' ability to recommend
appropriate actions within NERC. Second, direct NERC to submit an
informational filing within six months to explain its view as to
whether there is a further system protection issue that needs to be
addressed and if so, what forum and process should be used to address
that issue and what priority it should be accorded relative to other
reliability initiatives planned by NERC.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Trade Associations Supplemental Comments at 3 (footnote
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. NERC supports the Trade Associations' proposal to give NERC,
Commission staff, and technical experts the opportunity to further
examine whether there may be a potential system protection issue that
needs to be addressed. NERC states that it would make an informational
filing with the Commission regarding whether there is a further system
protection issue that needs to be addressed and if so, what forum and
process should be used to address that issue and what priority it
should be accorded relative to other reliability initiatives planned by
NERC.

    17. NERC requests that the Commission approve the proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 Requirement R1.3.10,
as filed.

VI. Discussion

    18. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to find that Reliability
Standard TPL-002-0, Requirement R1.3.10 requires the study of the non-
operation of non-redundant primary protection systems. Based on the
comments received, the Commission accepts NERC's interpretation of TPL-
002-0, Requirement R1.3.10, that finds that the requirement does not
require the study of non-operation of non-redundant primary protection
systems. Because we find NERC's proposed interpretation to be just and
reasonable, we, therefore, decline to adopt the NOPR proposal.
    19. We agree with the Trade Associations that there may be a system
protection issue that merits further exploration by technical experts.
The comments received in response to the Commission's NOPR and
Commission staff outreach discussions indicate that there may have been
a misunderstanding that the Commission's proposed interpretation would
have established a full redundancy requirement for all primary
protection systems. The Commission clarifies that it did not intend to
require full redundancy. Rather, the Commission believes that there is
an issue concerning the study of the non-operation of non-redundant
primary protection systems; e.g., the study of a single point of
failure on protection systems. The Commission agrees with commenters
that this issue does not have to be addressed in TPL-002-0, Requirement
R1.3.10.
    20. Accordingly, consistent with the supplemental comments of the
Trade Associations, we direct Commission staff to meet with NERC and
its appropriate subject matter experts to explore this reliability
concern, including where it can best be addressed, and identify any
additional actions necessary to address the matter. Further, we direct
NERC to make an informational filing within six months of the date of
the issuance of this Final Rule explaining whether there is a further
system protection issue that needs to be addressed and, if so, what
forum and process should be used to address that issue and what
priority it should be accorded relative to other reliability
initiatives planned by NERC.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This filing requirement has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under FERC-725, OMB Control No. 1902-0225.
This filing does not change the existing burden or reporting
requirements imposed on NERC under FERC-725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Information Collection Statement

    21. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\24\ The information contained here
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \25\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in Order
No. 693, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the current
Final Rule. This Final Rule accepts an interpretation of the currently
approved Reliability Standard and does not change this standard. The
interpretation of the current Reliability Standard at issue in this
final rule is not expected to change the reporting burden or the
information collection requirements. The informational filing required
of NERC is part of currently active collection FERC-725 and does not
require additional approval by OMB.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra n. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We will submit this final rule to OMB for informational
purposes only.
    24. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax: (202) 273-
0873].

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    25. 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.\27\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\28\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \28\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \29\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\30\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\31\ The RFA is not
implicated by this Final Rule because the interpretation accepted
herein does not modify the existing burden or reporting requirements.
With no changes to the Reliability Standard as approved, the Commission
certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \30\ 13 CFR 121.201.
    \31\ Id. n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Document Availability

    27. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    28. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    29. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
XI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    30. This final rule is effective 30 days from publication in
Federal Register. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence
of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in
section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Applicability, Mandatory reliability standards.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix 1

List of Commenters

American Transmission Company LLC
Avista Corporation
Black Hills Power, Inc.
Bonneville Power Administration
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Constellation Energy
Commodities Group, Inc., Constellation Energy Control and Dispatch,
LLC, Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., and Constellation Power Source
Generation, Inc., and Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance
Entergy Services, Inc.
Exelon Corporation
Florida Reliability Coordinating Council
Independent Electricity System Operator and Hydro One Networks
International Transmission Company \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company,
LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and ITC Great Plains, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISO/RTO Council
Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations
Company
Manitoba Hydro
Modesto Irrigation District
National Grid
New England States Committee on Electricity
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Public Power Council \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Public Power Council includes Washington Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association,
Oregon PUD Association, Northwest Public Power Association, Oregon
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, PNGC Power, Western Public
Agencies Group, Western Montana Electric G&T Cooperative, Inc.,
Oregon Municipal Electric Utilities Association, Washington PUD
Association, Northwest Requirements Utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliability First Corporation
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Southern Company Services, Inc.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power
Company, and Mississippi Power Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade Associations \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Trade Association includes the Edison Electric
Institute, the American Public Power Association, Canadian
Electricity Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, the Transmission Access Policy Study Group, and the
Electric Power Supply Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tampa Electric Company
Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion
Virginia Power
Wisconsin Electric Power Company

[FR Doc. 2011-24408 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50134-50136]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0918]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Labeling Requirements for Prescription Drugs

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on information collection
associated with labeling requirements for prescription drugs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by November 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before November 8, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 8, 2021. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket No. FDA-
2021-N-0918 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Labeling Requirements for Prescription
Drugs and Biological Products.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Labeling Requirements for Prescription Drugs

OMB Control Number 0910-0572--Revision

    This information collection supports FDA regulations governing the
labeling of prescription drugs. The regulations are codified in 21 CFR
part 201, subpart B (21 CFR 201.50 through 201.58) and set forth both
general requirements, as well as specific content and format
requirements. The regulations also provide for requesting a waiver from
any labeling requirement and do not apply to biological products that
are subject to the requirements of section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act.
    We are revising the information collection to include burden
associated with regulations applicable to medical gas labeling found in
Sec.  201.328 (21 CFR 201.328) and established by a final rule in the
Federal Register of November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81685 at 81694). While we
included corresponding changes and adjustments resulting from the final
rule to the information collection approved under OMB control number
0910-0139 as it pertains to good manufacturing practice requirements
and regulations in part 211 (21 CFR part 211), we did not make
corresponding changes and adjustments to this information collection
with regard to burden that may be associated with labeling requirements
found in Sec.  201.328 (81 FR 81685 at 81694).
    To assist respondents with the information collection we continue
to develop and issue guidance documents, available from our searchable
guidance database at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. All Agency guidance documents are issued
consistent with our good guidance practice regulations found in 21 CFR
10.115, which provide for public comment at any time.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Number of
            Activity/21 CFR Section                Number of     responses per   Total annual          Average burden per response          Total hours
                                                  respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling requirements for prescription drugs;              414           1.326             549  3,349...................................       1,838,601
 Sec.  Sec.   201.56 and 201.57.
Labeling of medical gas containers; Sec.                   260           1,663         432,380  0.17 (10 minutes).......................          43,238
 201.328.
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total.....................................  ..............  ..............         432,929  ........................................       1,881,839
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    New drug product and biological product applicants must: (1) Design
and create prescription drug labeling containing ``Highlights,''
``Contents,'' and ``Full Prescribing Information''; (2) test the
designed labeling (for example, to ensure that the designed labeling
fits into carton-enclosed products); and (3) submit it to FDA for
approval. Based on our experience with the information collection, we
estimate 414 applicants will prepare an average of 549 prescription
drug labels and assume it will require 3,349 hours to design, test, and
submit to FDA as part of a new drug application or a biologics license
application. Similarly, new medical gas containers must meet applicable
requirements found in part 211, as well as specific labeling
requirements in Sec.  201.328. We estimate that 260 respondents will
incur burden for the design, testing, production, and submission of
labeling for new medical gas containers as required under Sec.  201.328
and assume an average of 10 minutes (0.17) is required for these
activities.
    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an
overall increase resulting from an increase in submissions for new
product labeling as well as from the revision to include burden
associated with requirements in Sec.  201.328.

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19218 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50610-50614]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0780; Project Identifier AD-2021-00916-E;
Amendment 39-21728; AD 2021-19-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines, LLC
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE) PW1122G-JM, PW1124G1-JM,
PW1124G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-
JM, PW1133GA-JM, and PW1133G-JM model turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by a root cause analysis of an event involving an uncontained
failure of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) disk that resulted in high-
energy debris penetrating the engine cowling on an Airbus Model A321-
231 airplane, powered by IAE V2533-A5 model turbofan engines. This AD
requires removing certain HPT 1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks from
service. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 27, 2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 25, 2021.

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 https://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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0780; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7229; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 18, 2020, an Airbus Model A321-231 airplane, powered by
IAE V2533-A5 model turbofan engines, experienced an uncontained HPT
1st-stage disk failure that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating
the engine cowling. Based on a preliminary analysis of this event, on
March 21, 2020, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2020-07-51 (followed by
publication in the Federal Register on April 13, 2020, as a Final Rule,
Request for Comments (85 FR 20402)), which requires the removal from
service of certain HPT 1st-stage disks installed on IAE V2522-A5,
V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5,
and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines.
    Pratt & Whitney (PW) determined that the failure of the V2533-A5
model turbofan engine was due to an undetected subsurface material
defect in an HPT disk that may affect the life of the part. In June
2021, PW expanded its root cause analysis to include a review of
records for all other IAE and PW engines that contain parts of similar
material.
    On July 29, 2021, PW provided its PW1100G analysis results to the
FAA. PW's analysis identified a different population of HPT 1st-stage
and HPT 2nd-stage disks installed on IAE PW1122G-JM, PW1124G1-JM,
PW1124G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-
JM, PW1133GA-JM, and PW1133G-JM model turbofan engines that are also
affected by the unsafe condition in AD 2020-07-51 and require removal
from service. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
uncontained HPT disk failure, release of high-energy debris, damage to
the engine, damage to the airplane, and loss of the airplane. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires the removal from service of certain HPT 1st-stage
and HPT 2nd-stage disks installed on PW1122G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1124G-
JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM,
PW1133GA-JM, and PW1133G-JM model turbofan engines.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule.
PW determined that the failure of the V2533-A5 model turbofan engine
was due to an undetected subsurface material defect in an HPT disk that
may affect the life of the part. Based on the follow-on analysis
performed since that event, PW has identified a different population of
affected HPT 1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks installed on IAE
PW1122G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G-
JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, and PW1133G-JM model turbofan
engines that are affected by the same unsafe condition as contained in
AD 2020-07-51 and require removal from service. These HPT disks have
the highest risk of failure and require removal within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD to prevent additional HPT disk failures
and maintain an acceptable level of safety. This unsafe condition may
result in loss of the airplane. The FAA considers removal of certain
HPT 1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks to be an urgent safety issue.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0780 and Project Identifier
AD-2021-00916-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mark
Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove HPT 1st-stage or HPT 2nd-stage   94 work-hours x $85 per         $171,430        $179,420        $538,260
 disk.                                   hour = $7,990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-19-10 International Aero Engines, LLC: Amendment 39-21728;
Docket No. FAA-2021-0780; Project Identifier AD-2021-00916-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 27,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines, LLC (IAE)
PW1122G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1127GA-JM,
PW1127G-JM, PW1129G-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, and PW1133G-JM
model turbofan engines with an installed:
    (1) High-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk, part number (P/
N) 30G6201 or 30G7301, with a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1
to paragraph (c) of this AD; or
    (2) HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 30G5502 or 30G6602, with an S/N
listed in Figure 2 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10SE21.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10SE21.001

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an analysis performed by Pratt & Whitney
of an event involving an uncontained failure of an HPT 1st-stage
disk that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine
cowling. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT
1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in uncontained HPT disk failure, release of
high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane,
and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For IAE model turbofan engines with an HPT 1st-stage disk,
P/N 30G6201 or 30G7301, with an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph
(c) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective days of the AD,
remove the HPT 1st-stage disk from service.
    (2) For IAE model turbofan engines with an HPT 2nd-stage disk,
P/N 30G5502 or 30G6602, with an S/N listed in Figure 2 to paragraph
(c) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective days of the AD,
remove the HPT 2nd-stage disk from service.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i) 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 Mark Taylor,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on September 7, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19600 Filed 9-8-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29526]
[DOCID:fr26my10-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

Correction

    In notice document 2010-7818 beginning on page 17703 in the issue
of Wednesday, April 7 make the following correction:
    On page 17704, in the first column, immediately after the 10th
line, insert the following text:
    Accession Number: 20100329-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 16, 2010.
    Docket Numbers: ER10-941-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Letter
Agreement Regarding Comprehensive Seams Agreement Between Entergy
Services, In and SPP.
    Filed Date: 03/26/2010.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-7818 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50008-50011]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01433-T;
Amendment 39-22498; AD 2023-13-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of a non-full life clearance in the low-pressure hydraulic
pipes of the nose landing gear return line, due to two quality escapes.
This AD requires replacing the affected aluminum pipes with titanium
pipes, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits the
installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 5,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street,
Des Moines, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-0656.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dat Le, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 30, 2023 (88 FR 19021). The NPRM was prompted by AD
2022-0217R1, dated March 1, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD
2022-0217R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states Airbus
received reports from the manufacturer of a non-full life clearance in
the low-pressure hydraulic pipes of the nose landing gear return line,
due to two separate quality escapes. One quality escape occurred after
alodine process application on aluminum pipes, when black spots and
stains caused by corrosion pitting were found on inner and outer
diameters. In a second quality escape, aluminum pipes were identified
with an average ovality value (which measures the maximum and minimum
outer diameter of the pipe) above the admissible value. This condition,
if not corrected, could lead to a premature rupture in the yellow
hydraulic line, which, in case of additional independent system
failures, could result in reduced airplane controllability.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the affected
aluminum pipes with titanium pipes, as specified in EASA AD 2022-
0217R1. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected
parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0656.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from an individual and Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without
change.
    The FAA received an additional comment from Delta Air Lines
(Delta). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to the comment.

Request for Change in Compliance Time

    Delta requested a change to the compliance time for airplanes
having an affected part listed in the A350-941 Service Bulletin A350-
29-P020, dated July 28, 2022, modification of low pressure tubes S11-
12, from before exceeding 6 years since airplane date of manufacture,
or within 10 months after the effective date of this revised [EASA] AD
to 7,600 flight cycles. Delta expressed Airbus Engineering has
determined the impacted pipes, based on test results and analytical
calculation, have a maximum life limitation of 7,600 flight cycles.
Delta stated that Airbus developed a compliance time to ensure the
affected parts were replaced at their 6 year check. However, due to a
materials shortage, some affected aircraft did not embody Service
Bulletin A350-29-P020, dated July 28, 2022, at their 6 year check and
instead, would need to use the 10 months after the effective date
timeline. Delta expressed that 10 months after the effective date would
likely not align with a required aircraft check and does not follow the
Airbus calculated flight-cycle limit. Therefore, Delta stated that a
flight-cycle limit of 7,600 flight cycles should either replace the
calendar-driven compliance time; or for affected aircraft that already
completed the 6 year check the compliance time should be 7,600 flight
cycles since date of manufacture.
    The FAA considered the recommendations of the manufacturer, the
availability of parts and the safety implications, and determined that
accomplishing the applicable action prior to the accumulation of 7,000
total flight cycles, will provide an adequate level of safety. The FAA
determined that 7,000 flight cycles is more appropriate than 7,600
flight cycles based on an average fleet usage of 600 to 700 flight
cycles a year; this revised compliance time will ensure the unsafe
condition is addressed in a timely manner. The FAA has changed this AD
to include an additional exception to the EASA AD that will allow for
accomplishing the actions at the latest of before exceeding 6 years
since airplane date of manufacture, within 10 months after the
effective date of this AD or prior to the accumulation of 7,000 flight
cycles.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0217R1 specifies procedures for replacing the affected
aluminum pipes with titanium pipes. EASA AD 2022-0217R1 also prohibits
the installation of affected parts.
    This material 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                      Parts cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 130 work-hours x $85 per hour =  Up to $16,500..........  Up to $27,550..........  Up to $661,200.
 $11,050.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2023-13-13 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22498; Docket No. FAA-2023-0656;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01433-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 5,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a non-full life clearance in
the low-pressure hydraulic pipes of the nose landing gear return
line within the yellow hydraulic line system, due to two quality
escapes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the quality escapes
in the manufacture of these pipes. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in premature rupture in the yellow hydraulic
line, which, in case of additional independent system failures,
could result in reduced airplane controllability.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0217R1, dated March 1, 2023 (EASA AD 2022-0217R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0217R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0217R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0217R1.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2022-0217R1 refers to November 18, 2022 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2022-0217), this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.
    (4) Where table (2) of EASA AD 2022-0217R specifies a compliance
time of ``Before exceeding 6 years since aeroplane date of
manufacture, or within 10 months after the effective date of this
revised AD, whichever occurs later'', this AD requires using
``Before exceeding 6 years since airplane date of manufacture,
within 10 months after the effective date of this AD, or prior to
the accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs
latest.''

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dat Le, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]faa.gov.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0217R1,
dated March 1, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0217R1, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website: ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des

Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 7, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16235 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 20, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Cummins

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 8, 2011 between Cummins and EPA and included the following individuals:

      Cummins: Jackie Yeager, Jon Dickson, Gary Salemme, and Brian Mormino              EPA: Byron Bunker and Angela Cullen

The discussion focused primarily on the production and testing variability of engines.