This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

65642 

Vol. 77, No. 210 

Tuesday, October 30, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0615; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–352–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all The Boeing Company Model 757 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive operational tests of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel 

system, and other related testing if 

necessary. That NPRM was prompted by 

reports of two in-service occurrences on 

Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of 

boost pump pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine, 

and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

This action revises that NPRM by 

proposing to require repetitive 

operational tests and corrective actions 

if necessary. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct loss of the engine fuel suction 

feed capability of the fuel system, 

which, in the event of total loss of the 

fuel boost pumps, could result in dual 

engine flameout, inability to restart the 

engines, and consequent forced landing 

of the airplane. Since these actions 

impose an additional burden over that 

proposed in the previous NPRM, we are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

the public the chance to comment on 

these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by December 

14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• 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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0615; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–352–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

757 airplanes. That NPRM published in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 

FR 32256). That NPRM proposed to 

require repetitive operational tests of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel 

system, and other related testing if 

necessary, according to a method 

approved the FAA. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32256, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), we have 

received comments from operators 

indicating a high level of difficulty 

performing the actions in the previous 

NPRM during maintenance operations. 

The new service information referenced 

in this supplemental NPRM addresses 

these issues. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 

2012. This service information describes 

procedures for repetitive operational 

tests of the engine fuel suction feed of 

the fuel system, and corrective actions 

if necessary. The corrective actions 

include isolating the cause of any 

leakage and repairing the leak. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32256, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65643 

Request To Withdraw the Previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) 

American Airlines (AAL) asked that 

we withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32256, June 6, 2008). AAL 

recommended that a detailed review of 

the applicable system safety assessment 

(SSA) and failure mode and effects 

analysis (FMEA) be done for the fuel 

system on Model 757 airplanes. AAL 

stated that the fuel system, while similar 

in some design aspects to the fuel 

system on Model 737–400 airplanes on 

which the unsafe condition occurred, is 

sufficiently different that the probability 

of a similar failure is within the 

acceptable level of safety required for 

certification. AAL noted that there is a 

significant difference in the SSA and 

FMEA; specifically, all the wing fuel 

pump relays of the Model 757 airplane 

are powered by one leg of the three 

phase 115 volt alternating current (VAC) 

power provided to the respective pump, 

while the fuel cross-feel valve is 

powered by the battery direct current 

(DC) bus. AAL added that the wing fuel 

pump relays and fuel cross-feed valve 

are both supplied by DC bus power on 

Model 737 airplanes. Northwest 

Airlines (NWA) stated that we should 

explain what caused the failures that 

resulted in the previous NPRM, and 

noted that failure analysis could dictate 

a different action. 

We do not agree with the request to 

withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32256, June 6, 2008), because, together 

with the manufacturer, we have 

evaluated this issue and determined it 

to be an important safety concern. 

Although the fuel system on Model 757 

airplanes differs with respect to the 

engine fuel feed system design, service 

data of transport category airplanes 

indicates that multi-engine flameouts 

have generally resulted from a common 

cause, such as fuel mismanagement, 

crew action that inadvertently shut off 

the fuel supply to the engines, exposure 

to common environmental conditions, 

or engine deterioration on all engines of 

the same type. Successful in-flight 

restart of the engines is dependent on 

adequate fuel being supplied to the 

engines, solely through engine suction 

fuel feed. Deterioration of the fuel 

plumbing system can lead to line 

(vacuum) losses, reducing the engine 

fuel suction feed capability; therefore, 

directed maintenance is necessary to 

ensure this system is functioning 

correctly in order to maintain continued 

safe flight of the airplane. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Incorporate Certification 

Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task 

Into the Maintenance Program Instead 

of Issuing an NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 

6, 2008) 

AAL asked that instead of issuing an 

NPRM, a new or revised CMR task be 

issued for incorporation into the 

maintenance program. AAL stated that, 

since there is no modification or 

terminating action for the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), the 

test should not be mandated. AAL also 

stated that the requirements in the 

previous NPRM should not be 

addressed as an AD. AAL added that the 

CMR would demonstrate proof of 

analysis, and provide a best-fit solution 

for that analysis; i.e., an effective and 

feasible safety task, and the correct 

interval to match the effectivity of the 

task. 

We do not agree with the request to 

issue a new or revised CMR task. CMRs 

are developed by the Certification 

Maintenance Coordination Committee 

(CMCC) during the type certification 

process. The CMCC is made up of 

manufacturer representatives (typically 

maintenance, design, and safety 

engineering personnel), operator 

representatives designated by the 

Industry Steering Committee 

chairperson, FAA Aircraft Certification 

Office specialists, and the Maintenance 

Review Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs 

developed during this process become a 

part of the certification basis of the 

airplane upon issuance of the type 

certificate. We do not have a process for 

convening the CMCC outside of the type 

certification process; based on this, the 

CMR is not an option for replacing this 

AD. Therefore, if the airworthiness 

limitation items (ALIs) were not in the 

maintenance program at the time of 

initial certification, an AD is required to 

make the ALI task a required action. We 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Include Corrective Action 

Continental Airlines (CAL) asked that 

the related testing language specified in 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be changed. 

CAL stated that it should specify 

correcting discrepancies before further 

flight if the engine fails the operational 

test. CAL added that the corrective 

actions should be done in accordance 

with the procedures in the ‘‘Right (Left) 

Engine Fails the Suction Feed Test’’ 

procedure in the Boeing 757 Fault 

Isolation Manual (FIM) 28–22–00/101. 

We agree with the request to include 

corrective actions in paragraph (g) of 

this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) 

of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, 

June 6, 2008)). Since the previous 

NPRM does not include corrective 

actions, we have changed paragraph (g) 

of this supplemental NPRM to specify 

doing all applicable corrective actions 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 

2012. 

Requests To Revise Compliance Time 

CAL and NWA asked that we extend 

the repetitive operational test interval 

required by paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). CAL 

stated that a re-evaluation of the 

proposed repetitive interval limit after 

doing the initial inspection should be 

done, since its service history has 

revealed no reported engine flameout 

events or related operational 

discrepancies. CAL asked that the 

repetitive interval be extended to 

repeating the inspection during a 

normal maintenance 2C-check or within 

8,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs 

first. NWA stated that the previous 

NPRM does not indicate how the initial 

and repetitive intervals were 

determined. NWA asked that the 

repetitive interval be changed to up to 

10,000 flight hours to fit the mandated 

tests into its maintenance program Ccheck. 

We do not agree with the requests that 

the compliance time be extended. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for the actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)), we 

considered the safety implications and 

normal maintenance schedules for the 

timely accomplishment of the specified 

actions. We have determined that the 

proposed compliance time will ensure 

an acceptable level of safety and allow 

the actions to be done during scheduled 

maintenance intervals for most affected 

operators. However, affected operators 

may request an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) to request an 

extension of the repetitive operational 

test interval under the provisions of 

paragraph (h) of this supplemental 

NPRM by submitting data substantiating 

that the change would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Requests To Allow the Use of Later 

Revisions of the Maintenance 

Documents 

British Airways (BA), CAL, and 

United Airlines (UAL) asked that we 

allow using later revisions of the 

maintenance documents, because they 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

could be revised over time and would 

require frequent requests for AMOCs. 

We do not agree with the request. 

Allowing later revisions of service 

documents in an AD is not allowed by 

the Office of the Federal Register 

regulations for approving materials 

incorporated by reference. Affected 

operators may, however, request 

approval to use a later revision of 

referenced service information as an 

AMOC in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (h) of 

this supplemental NPRM. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Clarify if Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of 

the Operational Test 

BA asked that we clarify that the 

engine fuel suction feed test procedure 

in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning 

Data (MPD) document is an option for 

performing the operational test in the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 

2008). BA asked that we consider 

adding the engine fuel suction feed 

manifold leak-test procedure as an 

alternative procedure to performing the 

operational test specified in Section 28– 

22–00 of the Boeing 757 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM). 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

manifold test (Task 28–22–00–710–801) 

is not equivalent to the operational test 

(Task 28–22–00–710–802) for the 

purposes of this proposed action. The 

positive internal fuel line pressure 

applied during the manifold test does 

not simulate the same conditions 

encountered during fuel suction feed 

(i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. 

Therefore, we have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Include Warning 

Information 

CAL suggested that the Boeing service 

manuals include a critical design 

configuration control limitation 

(CDCCL) warning identification 

statement to alert maintenance 

personnel of the importance of 

regulatory compliance, as well as the 

configuration control requirement. CAL 

did not include any justification for this 

request. 

We agree that a CDCCL warning 

statement would serve as direct 

communication to maintenance 

personnel that there is an AD associated 

with certain maintenance actions, but 

do not find this additional measure 

necessary to adequately address the 

unsafe condition. We have made no 

change to the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance 

Section 

NWA stated that the cost estimate 

specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32256, June 6, 2008) is too low, and 

asked that it be changed. NWA stated 

that the cost of fuel is not included in 

the cost estimate and should be 

included due to the high cost of fuel. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request. Although fuel is used during 

the operational test, we have not 

received data on the amount of fuel 

used during the test. In addition, fuel 

costs vary among operators. Therefore, 

we do not have definitive data that 

would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, 

we have determined that direct and 

incidental costs are still outweighed by 

the safety benefits of the proposed AD. 

We have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Refer to Boeing 757 MPD, 

Section 6, Task 28–22–00–5D 

BA asked that the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32256, June 6, 2008) refer to the 

Boeing 757 MPD, which contains the 

repetitive test interval of 1C-check in 

the MPD task (6,000 flight hours/3,000 

flight cycles/18 months). BA added that 

it currently performs the test at 24- 

month C-check intervals, and has 

conducted the test on 71 airplanes since 

May 2006, with no failures identified. 

We do not agree to refer to the Boeing 

757 MPD in this supplemental NPRM. 

As stated previously, Boeing has issued 

Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, 

dated May 4, 2012, referred to as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for doing the actions 

proposed in this supplemental NPRM. 

We have made no change to the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Remove or Clarify Certain 

Language in Paragraph (f) of the 

Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 

2008) 

NWA asked that the last sentence in 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be removed or 

clarified. NWA stated that the intent of 

that sentence is unclear, and is 

reiterated as follows: ‘‘Thereafter, except 

as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, 

no alternative procedure or repeat test 

intervals will be allowed.’’ NWA added 

that it is standard practice that once an 

AD is issued, deviation procedures and 

intervals are not allowed unless 

approved by requesting an AMOC. 

We agree with the commenter that 

including the subject sentence is 

redundant; however, that sentence is 

included in paragraph (g) of this 

supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 

6, 2008)) merely as a reminder for 

operators of standard practices. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). As a result, 

we have determined that it is necessary 

to reopen the comment period to 

provide additional opportunity for the 

public to comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM revises the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 

2008) by proposing repetitive 

operational tests of the engine fuel 

suction feed of the fuel system, and 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 673 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We estimate the following costs 

to comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Operational Test .................. Up to 6 work hours × $85 per hour = $510 per engine, 

per test.

Up to $2,040, per test ....... Up to $343,230, per test. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65645 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2008–0615; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–352–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

14, 2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, 

and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of two 

in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 

airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure 

of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of 

fuel system suction feed capability on one 

engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability 

of the fuel system, which in the event of total 

loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in 

dual engine flameout, inability to restart the 

engines, and consequent forced landing of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions 

Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Perform an operational test of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, 

and do all applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 

36 months, whichever occurs first. 

Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph 

(h) of this AD, no alternative procedures or 

repeat test intervals will be allowed. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(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 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

22, 2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26670 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. AD12–6–000] 

Retrospective Analysis of Existing 

Rules: Notice of Staff Memorandum 

SUMMARY: Take notice that the 

Commission staff is issuing a 

memorandum setting forth certain 

minor revisions to the Commission’s 

Natural Gas Pipeline regulations that 

may be appropriate to remove reporting 

requirements that may no longer serve 

their intended purpose. The 

memorandum was issued pursuant to 

the Nov. 8, 2011 Plan for Retrospective 

Analysis of Existing Rules prepared in 

response to Executive Order 13579, 

which requested independent regulatory 

agencies issue plans for periodic 

retrospective analysis of their existing 

regulations. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS