[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 250 (Friday, December 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80533-80537]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AD22-8-000, AD21-15-000]

Transmission Planning and Cost Management; Joint Federal-State
Task Force on Electric Transmission; Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments

    On October 6, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) convened a technical conference to discuss transmission
planning and cost management for transmission facilities developed
through local or regional transmission planning processes.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on issues raised during the conference that they
believe would benefit from further discussion. In particular, parties
are invited to provide comments on the questions listed below.\1\
Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked, and they
are not limited to the topics or questions posed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No.
AD22-8-000 (Oct. 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket,
including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to
avoid repetition or replication of previous material. In addition,
commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples and
quantitative data in support of their answers. Comments must be
submitted on or before 90 days from the date of this notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\2\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
MD 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact: John Riehl
(Technical Information), Office of

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Market Regulation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

    Dated: December 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

Local Transmission Planning Under Order No. 890 and Planning for Asset
Management 3 Projects
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Asset Management refers to projects and activities that
``encompass the maintenance, repair, and replacement work done on
existing transmission facilities as necessary to maintain a safe,
reliable, and compliant grid based on existing topology.'' See So.
Cal. Edison Co, 164 FERC ] 61,160 at n.55 (2018); Cal. Pub. Util.
Comm'n v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 164 FERC ] 61,161 at n.119 (2018).
Additionally, asset management projects or activities may result in
an incidental increase in transmission capacity that is not
reasonably severable from the asset management project or activity,
and such incidental increase in transmission capacity would not
render the asset management project or activity in question a
transmission expansion that is subject to the transmission planning
requirements of Order No. 890. See So. Cal. Edison Co, 164 FERC ]
61,160 at P 33 (2018); Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Pac. Gas & Elec.
Co., 164 FERC ] 61,161 at P 68 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. In Order No. 890, the Commission established nine transmission
planning principles, including the coordination, openness,
transparency, and information exchange principles.\4\ The Commission
adopted the transmission planning principles in Order No. 890 to remedy
opportunities for undue discrimination in expansion of the transmission
system on both a local and regional level.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119, at P 444,
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 (2007), order on
reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g,
Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228, order on clarification, Order
No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
    \5\ Id. PP 57-58, 421-422, 425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Do the existing Order No. 890 transmission planning requirements
provide state regulators and other stakeholders with sufficient
transparency into and information about public utility transmission
providers' local transmission planning criteria and the resulting
identification of transmission system needs? If not, please explain how
the Commission could revise the coordination, openness, transparency,
and information exchange principles in Order No. 890 to provide for
enhanced transparency and information sharing. Further, please explain
what, if any, additional transparency measures would assist state
regulators and other stakeholders in understanding how public utility
transmission providers develop their local transmission planning
criteria, how those criteria drive local transmission needs, and how
public utility transmission providers consider local transmission
projects to address those needs.
    b. Is there any information beyond that required under the Order
No. 890 transmission planning principles that the Commission should
consider requiring public utility transmission providers to provide in
their local transmission planning processes? For example, should the
Commission require that public utility transmission providers make
available to state regulators and other stakeholders cost estimates
used during transmission planning for all transmission facility
alternatives considered to address the transmission needs, including,
but not limited to, those transmission facilities that are chosen to
address the local transmission planning criteria, or for a subset of
those facility alternatives? What would be the advantages and
disadvantages of such a requirement? If so, how should cost estimates
used during transmission planning for these transmission facilities be
calculated?
    c. Are there barriers to state regulators and other stakeholders
accessing the information that public utility transmission providers
provide through their local transmission planning processes (e.g.,
fees, background checks, etc.)? Do state regulators and other
stakeholders have access to the expertise necessary to analyze the
information presented and to evaluate the public utility transmission
providers' local transmission planning decisions? What actions could
the Commission take to reduce any such barriers?
    2. Order No. 890's requirements apply to transmission facilities
that expand the transmission system, but do not apply to asset
management projects, as defined above. However, some public utility
transmission providers have processes that provide stakeholders with
some transparency into their asset management decisions. For example,
Pacific Gas & Electric's Stakeholder Transmission Asset Review (STAR)
Process and Southern California Edison's Stakeholder Review Process
(SRP) provide stakeholders with the opportunity to engage in a review
of PG&E's and Southern California Edison's five-year plan for capital
transmission projects so that stakeholders can understand the need for
and anticipated costs of projects that are not reviewed in the
California Independent System Operator Corp.'s (CAISO) transmission
planning process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., PG&E, TO Tariff, PG&E Electric Tariff Volume No.
5 (0.0.0), Appendix IX, STAR Process (0.0.0). See also So. Cal. Ed.,
Docket No. ER19-1553-005, at 2 (Dec. 8, 2020) (delegated letter
order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Should the Commission require public utility transmission
providers to provide transparency concerning their asset management
decisions? Are there any aspects of Pacific Gas & Electric's STAR
Process or Southern California Edison's SRP that would be beneficial to
consider? What other considerations are relevant to the transparency of
asset management project decisions?
    b. Are there barriers to state regulators and other stakeholders
analyzing any additional information that the Commission could require
public utility transmission providers to provide concerning their asset
management projects? For example, do state regulators and other
stakeholders have access to the expertise necessary to analyze the
information presented? What actions could the Commission take to reduce
any such barriers?
    3. Could additional transparency facilitated by project-specific
disclosure requirements or standardized filing requirements help
increase the cost effectiveness of local transmission planning and
asset management decisions? Examples include additional transparency
and access to local planning criteria, utilities' rankings of their
project priorities (subject to CEII protections), requirements for
utilities to provide either publicly or to the Commission a
standardized disclosure describing the need for a local transmission
project or asset management project and why it is a cost-effective
solution to that need before money is spent on the planned transmission
project (other than any planning costs incurred), and a requirement for
utilities to provide advance notice of a project nearing its end of
life, among others. To the extent that such requirements may be
appropriate, what specific requirements should the Commission impose?
For example, for a standardized disclosure described above, should the
Commission require utilities to provide such information to
stakeholders as part of their local transmission planning process under
Order No. 890, or should the Commission require utilities to make a
filing with the Commission? At what point in the transmission planning
process should these filings be made? Should any such filings be
informational, or should they require Commission action? In designing
any such requirements, how should the

Commission weigh the administrative burden of those requirements
against the transparency provided?

Project Implementation and Variance Analysis

    4. In Order No. 1000, the Commission required public utility
transmission providers to describe the circumstances and procedures by
which they will reevaluate the regional transmission plan to determine
if delays in the development of a regional or interregional
transmission facility requires evaluation of alternative transmission
solutions (reevaluation requirement).\7\ To comply with this
requirement, some public utility transmission providers voluntarily
adopted a variance analysis process tied to changes in cost estimates
to examine whether a regional transmission facility selected in a
regional transmission plan for the purposes of cost allocation remains
the more efficient or cost-effective transmission facility if its costs
rise above estimates or if there are delays in that regional
transmission facility's development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation by Transmission
Owning and Operating Pub. Utils., Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ] 61,051,
at P 329 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Given that some RTOs/ISOs have voluntarily implemented variance
analyses for regional and interregional transmission planning, are
there certain best practices in regional and interregional transmission
planning variance analyses that should be more widely adopted?
Conversely, are there specific elements or characteristics of variance
analyses used by certain public utility transmission providers that
could be improved? Please describe.
    b. What consequences should result if variance analyses show that a
regional or interregional transmission facility's costs have increased
above an established threshold since it was initially selected in a
regional transmission plan for the purposes of cost allocation? What
consequences should result if variance analyses show that a regional or
interregional transmission facility's estimated benefits have eroded
beyond an established threshold since it was initially selected in a
regional transmission plan for the purposes of cost allocation?
    c. Should the Commission require public utility transmission
providers to perform variance analyses as part of their regional
transmission planning processes? To what types of regional transmission
projects should such a requirement apply?
    d. Could variance analysis or similar mechanism be applied to
facilitate cost management outside the context of regional or
interregional transmission facilities subject to cost allocation under
Order No. 1000 and, if so, should the Commission require it? What legal
rationale would justify the requirement to use variance analysis? What
level of increased costs or decreased benefits would merit evaluation
through a variance analysis to determine whether a transmission project
continues to be cost-effective? Would it be appropriate to apply a cost
or benefits threshold below which or above which, respectively, such a
requirement would not apply? Are there any categories of transmission
projects for which this cost management method is not appropriate?
    e. Who should be responsible for developing the cost estimates used
in the variance analysis? The RTO/ISO, the public utility transmission
provider, an Independent Transmission Monitor, or another entity?
Should this role vary between non-RTO/ISO and RTO/ISO regions, and/or
are there general guidelines with regard to independence that should be
met for any entity developing cost estimates or bandwidths?
    f. Can or should such an approach be designed in order to maximize
benefits to consumers, as opposed to focusing only on reducing costs?
For example, a given project modification might increase up-front costs
of the project, but lower costs for customers in the long-run by
enhancing project efficiency and thereby increasing anticipated
economic benefits. Should any variance analysis mechanism required by
the Commission be designed in a manner that encourages such
investments, or at minimum does not inadvertently discourage them? If
so, how?

Independent Transmission Monitor (ITM)

    5. During the technical conference, many panelists argued in favor
of an ITM to review and evaluate a wide range of elements of the
transmission planning process, including the transmission planning
criteria used to identify transmission facilities. However, others
expressed concern that an ITM would be unnecessary or duplicative in
light of other regulatory agencies or stakeholders. Given the
divergence of views on the potential roles and responsibilities of an
ITM, please respond to the following:
    a. Please provide a concise but detailed job description for an ITM
in both RTOs/ISOs and non-RTOs/ISOs. For example, should the ITM serve
as a technical expert that publishes after-the-fact reports assessing
public utility transmission providers' transmission plans? Should an
ITM assist state regulators and other stakeholder with evaluating
potential transmission facilities and their costs? Should an ITM
participate in proceedings before the Commission? Should an ITM develop
and monitor benchmark estimates of costs using data collected over
time? Should an ITM assess continuing need for certain transmission
projects? Should an ITM attend local and regional transmission planning
meetings? Please list specific roles that would be appropriate for an
ITM, and please explain at which stage of the transmission planning
process those roles should be leveraged (i.e., inputs and assumptions,
planning study results, selection, cost allocation, project
development).
    b. What are the potential benefits of an ITM? Please describe with
specificity, and address whether these benefits are particular to RTO/
ISO or non-RTO/ISO regions, or present in both.
    c. Are there specific challenges, including how the roles and
responsibilities of the ITM relate to Commission jurisdiction,
regarding the creation of an ITM, or the responsibilities that an ITM
might have that the Commission should consider? If so, please describe.
    d. What information would the ITM need access to in carrying out
these responsibilities? Should the ITM have access to transmission
planning and cost information, including CEII information? Please
describe with specificity the information that the ITM should be able
to review.
    e. If an ITM were established, should the Commission periodically
review the need for, role, and/or scope of that entity?
    f. Would the ITM's functions potentially overlap with the functions
of a public utility transmission provider, particularly in an RTO/ISO?
If so, where would the overlap occur? Where should the ITM be housed,
and what are the pros and cons of that arrangement (e.g., internal or
external independent entity similar to or incorporated within IMMs, an
office within the Commission itself, or some other arrangement)? How
should an ITM be funded?
    g. How, if at all, should an ITM's role differ between RTO/ISO
regions and non-RTO/ISO regions? What legal authority (or authorities)
could the Commission rely on in establishing an ITM, and does that
authority differ with respect to RTO/ISO and non-RTO/ISO regions?
Should the Commission require an ITM in both RTOs/ISOs and non-

RTOs/ISOs? If so, please state the legal justification in both RTOs/
ISOs and non-RTOs/ISOs. What implications does the Commission's scope
of authority have with regard to the potential structure and duties of
the ITM?
    h. How often and at what stages of the local and regional
transmission planning processes and interregional transmission
coordination process should an ITM review and evaluate transmission
facility cost information, if at all (e.g., during the transmission
planning cycle, during the development of the transmission facility, or
following the completion of construction of the transmission facility)?
What types of costs should an ITM review and evaluate (e.g., capital
costs, labor costs, etc.), if any? What should an ITM do with the
information that is reviewed and evaluated?
    i. Should the Commission establish a minimum threshold (e.g.,
costs, voltage, etc.) for transmission facilities that would be
reviewed by an ITM? If so, what should that threshold be and why? In
RTO/ISO regions, should an ITM review only transmission facilities that
address local transmission planning criteria and asset management
transmission projects?
    j. Should an ITM be subject to standards of conduct or other
professional criteria? If so, what should those standards be?

Commission's Formula Rates and Prudence Practices

    6. Under the MISO Protocol Orders,\8\ the Commission required
public utility transmission providers to include safeguards in their
transmission formula rate protocols to provide transparency in the
public utility transmission providers' implementation of their
transmission formula rates, to ensure that input data is correct, and
that their calculations are performed consistent with the formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ]
61,127 at P 9 (2013); see also Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys.
Operator, Inc., 143 FERC ] 61,149 (2013); Midcontinent Indep. Sys.
Operator, Inc., 146 FERC ] 61,212 (2014); and Midcontinent Indep.
Sys. Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ] 61,025 (2015) (collectively, MISO
Protocol Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. What, if any, specific standard formula rate protocols that the
Commission requires under the MISO Protocol Orders and other precedent
should be revised, and how? For example, should the Commission require
public utility transmission providers to provide additional time for
state regulators and other stakeholders to review and respond to annual
updates before they are submitted to the Commission?
    7. Under the Commission's current prudence standard, the Commission
presumes that a public utility transmission provider's expenditures are
prudent in the absence of a challenge casting serious doubt on such
prudence, and establishing serious doubt regarding prudence requires
``reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Delmarva Power & Light Co., 172 FERC ] 61,175, at P 15
(2020) (citing New Eng. Power Co., Opinion No. 231, 31 FERC ] 61,047
(1985)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Should the Commission alter the rebuttable presumption of
prudence of expenditures in certain circumstances, such as with respect
to specific types of expenditures (e.g., asset management
expenditures), where alternatives to transmission have not been
considered, or where a state regulator has not reviewed a project for
need and cost? If so, how should the standard be altered and in which
circumstances?
    8. Other than transparency criteria, are there ways that the
Commission could consider local planning criteria that utilities use in
determining how the prudence standard is applied to specific
expenditures? For example, with respect to local transmission and/or
asset management projects, should the Commission establish certain
guidance for planning such projects and only apply the rebuttable
presumption of prudence to projects that follow the Commission-
determined guidelines for planning such projects? What are the pros and
cons of that approach?

Federal and State Regulation of Transmission Facilities

    9. Some panelists at the technical conference argued that there is
a regulatory gap with regard to ensuring that a cost-effective mix of
local, asset management, and regional reliability transmission projects
is developed. Generally speaking, for such projects they contend that
state siting processes, the formula rate process, and the Commission's
prudence standard and existing transparency requirements, may not
provide adequate assurance that utilities will choose a cost-effective
mix of projects. Do you agree that there is a regulatory gap for local
projects and/or asset management projects, and if so, why or why not?
Does the presence or extent of a regulatory gap depend on the
underlying state regulatory framework? If so, how? If you agree that
one or more regulatory gaps exist, how should the Commission address
these gaps? For example, should the Commission modify the prudence
standard and/or formula rate protocols for transmission or asset
management projects falling within such a regulatory gap? Should the
Commission establish new transmission planning requirements to help
ensure that such projects are cost-effective? In your response, please
discuss whether the Commission's approach should depend on the
underlying state regulatory framework. Also please discuss the extent
to which your recommended reforms, standing alone, will address the
perceived gaps, or whether they should or must be coupled with other
solutions.
    10. Some panelists argued that certain types of projects do not
receive adequate state, regional, or federal scrutiny with regard to
project prudence/need. For example, the Commission has held that asset
management and end-of-life decisions are not subject to Order No. 890
planning requirements, and panelists highlighted that in some states
such projects do not require a certificate of public convenience and
necessity. Do you agree that some projects are not subject to adequate
review, and if so, why or why not? What particular types of projects do
not receive adequate scrutiny (if any), and should there be some form
of heightened scrutiny for them? If so, what kind of heightened
scrutiny would be appropriate, and how would that scrutiny be applied?
    11. The Commission has authority over the justness and
reasonableness of the rates for wholesale transmission service,
including recovery of the costs of transmission facilities used in
providing transmission service and the prudence of those expenditures,
and has approved public utility transmission provider proposals to
recover their costs of providing transmission service through formula
rates. Under a formula rate, the Commission reviews and accepts as the
rate a formula for calculating the utility's cost of service, including
clear definitions of inputs to that formula and a process for updating
rates every year as the utility's costs change. State regulators
typically have authority to evaluate whether certain transmission
facilities to be built within their state may be constructed (i.e.,
whether to grant the proposed facility a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)), which may involve evaluation of the
need for, and projected costs of, a proposed transmission facility.
    a. Are there differences among the states' CPCN authorities and
processes, and what is the extent of those differences?
    b. Should the Commission consider relying on a state regulator's
determination in a CPCN proceeding

that a proposed transmission facility is in the public convenience and
necessity when considering whether the costs of that transmission
facility may be recovered through a formula rate? Should the Commission
prohibit the recovery of transmission project costs through a formula
rate if those projects have not been subject to a robust state CPCN
process? Why or why not? Should the Commission accept as self-proving
an attestation from state regulators that such a robust CPCN process is
used in their state? If yes, are there specific factors or features of
a state regulator's CPCN process that indicate whether a potential
transmission facility has been robustly evaluated for need and cost? If
not, are there other indicators (e.g., other regulatory determinations,
third-party analyses, legislative reports, etc.) that demonstrate that
the need for and costs of a potential transmission facility have been
robustly reviewed? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this
approach?
    c. If formula rate treatment is not permitted, how should costs
related to the new transmission project or transmission facility be
separated out for recovery in a stated rate proceeding (e.g., should
all costs related to the transmission facility be excluded from formula
rate recovery, or only capital costs)? How could the timing of the
state regulatory proceeding impact a public utility transmission
provider's ability to file for cost recovery of proposed transmission
facilities subject to CPCN review? How, if at all, would the inability
to recover the costs of certain transmission facilities through a
public utility transmission provider's formula rate impact its annual
formula rate proceedings?
    d. If the Commission determines that a potential transmission
facility has not been robustly evaluated at the state level for need
and cost, are there other regulatory requirements that the Commission
could impose short of requiring a transmission facility's costs to be
recovered through stated rates rather than formula rates? If so, what
options are available and what are the pros and cons of those options?

Other Questions

    12. Some panelists argued that the timing of cost management or
oversight mechanisms is relevant to ensuring cost effectiveness,
contending that cost scrutiny must be applied to decisions during the
local or regional transmission planning phase in order to influence
those decisions. Do you agree, and if so why or why not? What are the
possibilities for facilitating timely cost management before money is
spent on transmission projects (aside from planning costs)?

[FR Doc. 2022-28454 Filed 12-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30371-30376]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1100; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-37-AD;
Amendment 39-17044; AD 2012-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2500-A1, V2525-D5 and
V2528-D5 turbofan engines, and certain serial numbers (S/Ns) of IAE
V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and
V2533-A5 turbofan engines. That AD currently requires initial and
repetitive ultrasonic inspections (USIs) of certain high-pressure
compressor (HPC) stage 3 to 8 drums, and replacement of drum attachment
nuts. This new AD expands the affected population for initial and
repetitive inspections of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum, introduces an eddy
current inspection (ECI) procedure, and requires additional cleaning
and repetitive USI of some HPC stage 3 to 8 drums. We are issuing this
AD to prevent uncontained failure of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum, which
could result in damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 27, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
International Aero Engines AG, 628 Hebron Avenue, Suite 400,
Glastonbury, CT 06033; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: https://www.iaeworld.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. 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: Carlos Fernandes, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2010-20-07, Amendment 39-16441 (75 FR 59067,
September 27, 2010). That AD applies to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2011 (76 FR
82202). That NPRM proposed to continue to require initial and
repetitive USIs of certain HPC stage 3 to 8 drums, and replacement of
drum attachment nuts. That NPRM also proposed to expand the affected
population for initial and repetitive inspections of the HPC stage 3 to
8 drum, introduce an ECI procedure, and require additional cleaning and
repetitive USI of some HPC stage 3 to 8 drums.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include Entire V2500 Fleet of Engines, and Modify the
Optional Terminating Action

    Airbus and IAE requested that we change the applicability to
include the entire V2500 fleet of engines, and to modify the optional
terminating action to include partially silver plated nuts, part number
(P/N) AS64367. The commenters stated that one new HPC stage 3 to 8 drum
was discovered installed with partially silver plated nuts, P/N
AS64367, that had some corrosion pitting.
    We partially agree. We agree with making a change to the optional
terminating action, because the corrosion pitting found was on the
optional terminating action configuration. We changed the AD, deleting
the optional terminating action from the AD. We do not agree with
including the entire V2500 fleet of engines, because we do not yet have
enough information to determine what actions are needed if the nuts are
only partially silver plated. We did not change the AD to affect the
entire V2500 engine population.

Request To Correct Paragraph Reference Errors

    Seven commenters requested that in paragraph (i), Optional
Terminating Action, we correct the paragraph references of (h)(1) and
(h)(2) to (i)(1) and (i)(2).
    We agree. However, we have deleted the Optional Terminating Action
paragraph from the AD, as described previously, and redesignated the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We did not change the AD based on
this comment.

Request To Add a Section to Previous Credit

    Air New Zealand requested that we add a section to paragraph (k),
Previous Credit, for prior installation of a zero-time HPC stage 3 to 8
drum that has never operated with fully silver plated nuts.
    We do not agree. We already state in Compliance paragraph (e) that
actions are required unless the actions have already been done. We did
not change the AD.

Request To Reference the AD Being Superseded

    Onur Air requested that we reference the AD being superseded, as it
is not mentioned in the proposed AD.
    We do not agree. We already reference the superseded AD in the
Discussion and in paragraph (b). We did not change the AD.

Exclude Certain HPC Stage 3 to 8 Drums

    Onur Air stated that drums which were cleaned, fluorescent
penetrant inspected (FPI), and installed with non-fully silver plated
nuts into the engine in a previous shop visit are not addressed, and
should be excluded in the mandatory terminating action of the proposed
AD.
    We do not agree. These drums are subject to the repetitive
inspections specified in the AD. We did not change the AD.

Request To Rewrite Paragraphs (f) and (h)

    Christchurch Engine Centre and United Airlines requested that we
rewrite paragraph (f) and (h) because they believe those paragraphs
imply that the grace period of FPI or ECI apply to the repetitive USI
frequency.
    We do not agree. The grace period affects the USI start, based on
the type of previous inspection and not the USI re-inspection interval.
As specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, USI inspections are
to be done every 750 cycles-since-last USI. If an FPI is done, then the
USI is required within 2,500 cycles from the FPI, and then done every
750 cycles-since-last USI. The process for the ECI is the same. We did
not change the AD.

Request To Use the Engine Manual (EM) Instead of the Service Bulletin
(SB) for Cleaning

    Christchurch Engine Centre and IAE requested that cleaning be done
using the EM instead of the SB.
    We partially agree. The EM or the SB may be used as the cleaning
procedure. We changed the AD to include the EM and SB as guidance for
the cleaning procedure.

Request To Correct a Service Bulletin No.

    Christchurch Engine Centre requested that we correct an error in
the SB No. in paragraph (k)(4) of the proposed AD from ``V2500-ENG-72-
615'' to ``V2500-ENG-72-0615''.
    We agree. We changed the AD to use the correct SB No. V2500-ENG-72-
0615.

Request To Incorporate by Reference (IBR) SBs

    Christchurch Engine Centre requested that we IBR the SBs into the
AD, and stated that the proposed AD is missing the Material
Incorporated by Reference section.
    We agree. In the NPRM, we identified SBs needed for compliance. But
in NPRMs, we do not set them in a separate IBR paragraph. In our final
rules we do, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. In this
final rule, we IBR'd SBs necessary for compliance in the AD.

Request To Reconsider the Cost of Compliance

    Japan Airlines requested that we reconsider the Cost of Compliance.
Based on their experience, they believe it requires at least 11 hours
to perform the required work.
    We do not agree. The hours are based on average times provided by
the type certificate holder. Actual times may vary depending on engine
configuration and number of engines inspected. We did not change the
Cost of Compliance.

Request To Mandate Only Relevant Sections of the USI Procedures

    Japan Airlines and United Airlines requested that the AD mandate
only the relevant sections of the USI procedures in IAE Non-
Modification SB (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, and NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011.
    We agree. We changed the AD to clarify the initial inspection
requirements of the AD.

Request for Previous Credit

    Japan Airlines and United Airlines requested that we give previous
credit for operators using earlier revisions of the USI SBs listed in
the proposed AD, as some operators have already inspected using the
earlier revisions.
    We agree. We changed AD to give credit for commpliance to the
earlier SBs listed in the AD.

Request To Allow Special Flight Permits

    United Airlines and TAM Airlines requested that we allow Special
Flight Permits so that the airplane can be flown to a location where
the work required by the AD can be performed.
    We do not agree. The AD already allows flights to a repair
facility. We did not change the AD.

Request To Include All HPC Stage 3 to 8 Drum P/N Possibilities

    United Airlines requested that we include all HPC stage 3 to 8 drum
P/N possibilities in the SB. The commenter believes that drum P/N
6B1404, which is manufactured from the same titanium material as drum
P/N 6A8316, should be included.
    We do not agree. The AD currently applies to all engines with HPC
stage 3 to 8 drums that operated with fully silver plated nuts. Drum P/
N 6B1404 was introduced into production with engine S/N higher than
V13191 and ``Select One'' engines S/N higher than V15575, and are
outside of the applicability of this AD. We did not change the AD.

Request To Clarify Piece-Part Exposure Definition

    United Airlines and MTU Maintenance Hanover GmbH requested that we
clarify the definition of piece-part exposure.
    We agree. We changed the definition to: ``For the purpose of this
AD, piece-part exposure is removal of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum from
the engine, removal of all blades from the drum, and separation of the
HPC stage 3 to 8 drum from the stage 9 to 12 drum.''

Request To Remove Redundant SB Listing

    IAE requested that we remove the redundant listing of NMSB No.
V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated September 20, 2011, under Relevant
Service Information in the preamble of the proposed AD.
    We agree. However, we do not repeat the Relevant Service
Information in the final rule. We did not change the AD.

Request To Clarify Compliance Timeframe and Establish a Calendar End-
Date

    IAE requested that we clarify why a compliance timeframe is
required to remove all fully silver plated nuts and also establish a
calendar end-date of 2021.
    We do not agree. The unsafe condition results from a corrosive
operating environment. The amount of corrosion varies with time and
location, and we have no data to support a calendar end-date of 2021.
We did not change the AD.

Request To Delay USI Start Time and Repeat Inspection Time

    TAM Airlines requested that we delay the USI start time to 13,500
cycles-since-new, and increase the repeat inspection time to 1,500
cycles-since-the-last USI.
    We do not agree. The initial and repetitive inspection intervals
were established based on field experience, and extensive analysis and
testing. We have no data that supports an increase in the compliance
times. We did not change the AD.

Request for Special Increase Limit

    PT GMF Aeroasia requested that we allow them a special increase
limit for one of their engines that is above 13,700 cycles to allow
time to receive the special tooling required for the inspections.
    We do not agree. The analysis and testing does not support
continued safe flight above 13,700 cycles. We did not change the AD.

Request for Changes To Make It Easier for Operators to Comply With the
AD

    United Airlines requested that we add specific accept/reject
criteria of missing liner material in the USI inspection area. The
commenter also requested that we remove the requirement for borescoping
the HPC stage 7 to 8 drum ceramic liner for staining or axial cracking,
or, that we specify accept/reject criteria for staining and cracking of
the ceramic liner. They also requested that we delay blending limit
measurements of the HPC case port and add details for material removal
to allow access for the probe manipulators. These changes would make it
easier for operators to comply with the AD and avoid unnecessary
delays.
    We partially agree. We agree with specifying accept/reject criteria
for missing liner material in the USI inspection area. The borescope
requirement of the HPC stage 7 to 8 drum ceramic liner for staining or
axial cracking improves the probability of detection, however we agree
to remove it due to lack of clear accept/reject criteria. We do not
agree with including in the AD when to perform blending limits
measurements and adding details for material removal to allow access
for the probe manipulators because they are part of preparation. We
added to the AD that any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI
probe from the liner will need to be repaired to perform an acceptable
inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of the USI probe
must be smaller than the head of the probe.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 906 IAE V2500-A1, V2522-
A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5,
V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per engine
to perform the USI, and about 2 work-hours per engine to perform the
FPI of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. We also estimate that removal of silver residue from the
engine will cost about $2,600

per engine, and required parts about $795 per engine. We also estimate
the cost of replacing a drum if found cracked will be $189,000. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
replacement. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the
AD to U.S. operators to be $4,385,040.

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 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2010-20-07, Amendment 39-16441 (75 FR 59067, September 27, 2010), and
adding the following new AD:

2012-09-09 International Aero Engines AG: Amendment 39-17044; Docket
No. FAA-2009-1100, Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-37-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-20-07, Amendment 39-16441 (75 FR
59067, September 27, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:
    (1) All International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2500-A1 turbofan
engines; and
    (2) All IAE V2525-D5 and V2528-D5 turbofan engines; and
    (3) IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5,
V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines with serial numbers (S/Ns)
up to and including V13181, and with S/Ns from V15000 up to and
including V15245.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD results from reports of 50 additional high-pressure
compressor (HPC) stage 3 to 8 drums found cracked since AD 2010-20-
07 was issued. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC
stage 3 to 8 drum, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions
have already been done.

(f) Initial Ultrasonic Inspections (USIs) of the HPC Stage 3 to 8
Drum--``Group A''

    For IAE V2500-A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5,
V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines with S/Ns in
``Group A'' in paragraph 1.A. in IAE Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated September
20, 2011, perform an initial USI of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum before
accumulating 5,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or within 500 cycles from
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, as follows:
    (1) For IAE V2500-A1 turbofan engines:
    (i) For on-wing inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections E, G(1) through G(5), I, and J.
    (ii) For on-wing inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections L, N(1) through N(5), P(1), and Q.
    (iii) For shop inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections AU, AW(1) through AW(5), AY, and AZ.
    (iv) For shop inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BB, BD(1) through BD(5), BF(1), and BG.
    (v) Any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI probe
from the liner will need to be repaired in order to perform an
acceptable inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of
the USI probe must be smaller than the head of the probe.
    (2) For V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5,
V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines:
    (i) For on-wing inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections Z, AB(1) through AB(5), AD, and AE.
    (ii) For on-wing inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections AG, AI(1) through AI(5), AK(1), and AL.
    (iii) For shop inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BO, BQ(1) through BQ(5), BS, and BT.
    (iv) For shop inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BV, BX(1) through BX(5), BZ(1), and CA.
    (v) Any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI probe
from the liner will need to be repaired in order to perform an
acceptable inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of
the USI probe must be smaller than the head of the probe.

(g) Initial USIs of the HPC Stage 3 to 8 Drum--``Group B''

    For IAE V2500-A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5,
V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 Turbofan Engines with S/Ns in
``Group B'' in Paragraph 1.A. in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615,
Revision 3, dated September 20, 2011, perform an initial USI of the
HPC stage 3 to 8 drum before accumulating 12,500 CSN or within 500
cycles from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
not to exceed 13,700 CSN, as follows:
    (1) For IAE V2500-A1 turbofan engines:

    (i) For on-wing inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections E, G(1) through G(5), I, and J.
    (ii) For on-wing inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections L, N(1) through N(5), P(1), and Q.
    (iii) For shop inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections AU, AW(1) through AW(5), AY, and AZ.
    (iv) For shop inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BB, BD(1) through BD(5), BF(1), and BG.
    (v) Any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI probe
from the liner will need to be repaired in order to perform an
acceptable inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of
the USI probe must be smaller than the head of the probe.
    (2) For V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5,
V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines:
    (i) For on-wing inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections Z, AB(1) through AB(5), AD, and AE.
    (ii) For on-wing inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections AG, AI(1) through AI(5), AK(1), and AL.
    (iii) For shop inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BO, BQ(1) through BQ(5), BS, and BT.
    (iv) For shop inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections BV, BX(1) through BX(5), BZ(1), and CA.
    (v) Any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI probe
from the liner will need to be repaired in order to perform an
acceptable inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of
the USI probe must be smaller than the head of the probe.

(h) Initial USIs for All IAE V2525-D5 and V2528-D5 Turbofan Engines

    (1) For all IAE V2525-D5 and V2528-D5 turbofan engines, perform
an initial USI of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum before accumulating
12,500 CSN or within 500 cycles from the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, not to exceed 13,700 CSN.
    (i) For on-wing inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections E, G(1) through G(5), I, and J.
    (ii) For on-wing inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAENMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections L, N(1) through N(5), P(1), and Q.
    (iii) For shop inspections of the outer diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections Z, AB(1) through AB(5), AD, and AE.
    (iv) For shop inspections of the inner diameter, perform an
initial USI using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated
September 20, 2011, Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3,
sections AG, AI(1) through AI(5), AK(1), and AL.
    (v) Any liner loss which results in lifting of the USI probe
from the liner will need to be repaired in order to perform an
acceptable inspection. Liner loss found under the intended path of
the USI probe must be smaller than the head of the probe.

(i) Removal of All Fully Silver Plated Nuts

    (1) At the next piece part exposure of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum
after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 8 years from
the effective date of this AD, do the following before returning any
HPC stage 3 to 8 drum to service:
    (i) Remove from service all fully silver plated nuts, part
number AS44862 or equivalent that attach the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum
to the HPC stage 9 to 12 drum.
    (ii) Remove the silver residue from the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum.
You can find guidance to remove the silver residue of the HPC stage
3 to 8 drum in IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0601, Revision 2, dated
April 12, 2010, or in IAE engine manual task 72-41-11-110-001.
    (2) Perform an inspection using one of the following methods:
    (i) Fluorescent penetrant inspect (FPI) the HPC stage 3 to 8
drum for cracks, and remove from service any drum found cracked. You
can find guidance on performing an FPI of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum
in IAE engine manual task 72-41-11-200-001.
    (ii) Eddy current inspect (ECI) the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum for
cracks, using IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0625, dated September 20,
2011, and remove from service any drum found cracked.
    (3) If cracks or crack indications are identified, remove the
drum from service before further flight.
    (4) Accomplishing paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD before
the inspection criteria requirements of paragraphs (f), (g) or (h)
of this AD, may be substituted for the initial USI requirement of
paragraphs (f), (g) or (h) of this AD.

(j) Repetitive USIs of the HPC Stage 3 to 8 Drum

    Perform repetitive USIs of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum for cracks
in accordance with paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (g)(1), (g)(2), or
(h)(1) of this AD as applicable, as follows:
    (1) Within every 750 cycles-since-last USI; or
    (2) Within 2,500 cycles-since-last FPI; or
    (3) Within 13,000 cycles-since-last ECI, whichever occurs
latest.

(k) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure is removal of
the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum from the engine, removal of all blades
from the drum, and separation of the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum from the
stage 9 to 12 drum.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) If you performed a USI before the effective date of this AD
using the following IAE NMSB's, you met the requirements of this AD:
    (i) IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0594, Revision 3, dated August 7,
2009, or Revision 4, dated October 13, 2009; or Revision 5, dated
November 23, 2009; or Revision 6, dated April 12, 2010.
    (ii) IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0603, Initial Issue, dated
November 24 2009; or Revision 1, dated December 18, 2009; or
Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010.
    (iii) IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Initial Issue, dated May
5, 2010; Revision 1, dated August 6, 2010; or Revision 2, dated
January 4, 2011.
    (iv) IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Initial Issue, dated July
19, 2010; Revision 1, dated August 2, 2010; or Revision 2, dated
November 24, 2010.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carlos
Fernandes, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Guidance on removing the silver residue of the HPC stage 3
to 8 drum may be found in International Aero Engines Service
Bulletin No. V2500-ENG-72-0601, Revision 2, dated April 12, 2010,
and in IAE engine manual task 72-41-11-110-001.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) International Aero Engines Non-Modification Service Bulletin
No. V2500-ENG-72-0608, Revision 3, dated September 20, 2011.
    (ii) International Aero Engines Non-Modification Service
Bulletin No. V2500-ENG-72-0615, Revision 3, dated September 20,
2011.
    (iii) International Aero Engines Non-Modification Service
Bulletin No. V2500-ENG-72-0625, dated September 20, 2011.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
International Aero Engines AG, 628 Hebron Avenue, Suite 400,
Glastonbury, CT 06033; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: https://www.iaeworld.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 2, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12329 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61469-61470]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-38]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before October 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0113 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas ARM-105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC
20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0113.
    Petitioner: Southwest Airlines Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 121.139.
    Description of Relief Sought: The relief sought would allow
Southwest to operate its aircraft without carrying the appropriate
parts of the maintenance manual aboard the airplane when its away from
its principle base of operations.

[FR Doc. 2012-24787 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22221-22222]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-3324]

Reconditioning of Fish and Fishery Products by Segregation;
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Reconditioning of Fish and Fishery Products by Segregation.'' This
guidance is intended to provide industry with an explanation of two
potential approaches to recondition fish and fishery products by
effectively segregating adulterated portions of an article from
portions not containing the adulterant to ensure that only safe and
wholesome product reaches consumers.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on April 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

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 the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-3324 for ``Reconditioning of Fish and Fishery Products by
Segregation.'' Received comments 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.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
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>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to Office
of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and
Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two
self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Bloodgood, Division of Seafood
Safety, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Lauren Kleinman, Office of
Regulations and Policy (HFS-024), Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park,
MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Reconditioning of Fish and Fishery Products by
Segregation.'' We are issuing the guidance consistent with our

good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance
represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    This guidance is intended to help owners of fish and fishery
products, or their representatives, interested in bringing adulterated
products into compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
by means of segregating non-violative product from adulterated product.
Specifically, this document provides guidance on:
     Segregation based on a production-related rationale
supported by production records or information identifying the cause of
the adulteration along with sampling and testing to confirm that the
segregation was successful; or
     Segregation based on the results of statistically
significant sampling and testing.
    In the Federal Register of September 17, 2019 (84 FR 48935), we
announced a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Reconditioning of
Fish and Fishery Products by Segregation'' and gave interested parties
an opportunity to submit comments by November 18, 2019, for us to
consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We
received comments on the draft guidance and have modified the final
guidance where appropriate. Changes to the guidance include the
addition of a detailed explanation for our more robust sampling
recommendations. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the
draft guidance dated September 2019.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR 1.94(b) and 21 CFR 1.95(a) and (b) using Form
FDA 766 have been approved under the OMB control number 0910-0025.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: April 8, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07979 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 44422-44423]
[DOCID:fr28au09-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60561; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSEAmex LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Fee for
Annual Regulatory Training

August 24, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 17, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the section of its Schedule of Fees
and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Schedule'') in order to adopt
a new fee for Annual Regulatory Training. The text of the proposed rule
change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this
filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com,
at the Exchange's principal office and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    As required by NYSE Amex Rule 50 Commentary .03-.04, ATP Holders
and certain qualified floor personnel are required to participate in an
Exchange sponsored mandatory regulatory training program. Pursuant to
provisions contained in Rule 50 Commentary .03-.04, the Exchange may
charge a per program fee, as indicated in the Schedule, for each
participant in any training program. The Exchange is proposing to adopt
a $60 per person fee for any ATP Holder or associated person that
participates in a regulatory training program.
    Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Exchange will offer
regulatory training via a Web-based interactive program that
participants in the program may access from any Internet-capable
computer. The purpose of this fee is to cover the Exchange's costs
associated with the development and delivery of the regulatory training
program.
    In determining the $60 program fee, the Exchange has evaluated the
expenses associated with the program and took into consideration the
expected number of individuals that will participate in the program.
Upon the completion of the annual training program, the Exchange will
review the fee to ensure that the fee continues to properly reflect the
Exchange's development and delivery costs. Any revenues collected in a
given year that exceed that year's actual development and delivery
costs will be credited to the projected development and delivery costs
for the succeeding year. Similarly, any deficit may be carried over to
the next year for purposes of assessing the fee. If the Exchange
determines that further fee changes are necessary, it will submit an
appropriate filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The assessment of a fee for Regulatory Training, and the
annual evaluation of the program is similar to the program in place
at the New York Stock Exchange. See Securities and Exchange Act
Release No. 59979 (May 27, 2009) 74 FR 26454 (June 2, 2009) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2009-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify language contained in the
Limit on [sic] Fees on Options Strategy Executions section of the
Schedule. The new language states, ``The cap applies to all Strategy
Executions executed on the same trading day in the same options
class.'' This proposed language is consistent with the way in which the
Exchange currently applies the fee cap, and simply seeks to eliminate
any potential confusion caused by the current language.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4), in particular, in
that it provides for the equitable allocation of dues, fees and other
charges among its members. Under this proposal, all similarly situated
Exchange participants will be charged the same reasonable dues, fees
and other charges.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \5\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-56. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-56 and should
be submitted on or before September 18, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20820 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P