### 3189 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0228, dated July 28, 2011, specifies that the sequence of steps to do the actions can be changed, this AD does not allow the sequence of steps to be changed.

(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0228, dated July 28, 2011, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the original issue date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time ‘‘after the effective date of this AD.’’
(i) 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 e-mailed 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.

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(j) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 3356; phone: (425) 917–6577; fax: (425) 917– 6590; e-mail: berhane.alazar@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, Washington 98124–2207; telephone (206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766– 5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com ; 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 January 13, 2012. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2012–1202 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2012–0036; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–142–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by test reports showing that failure of a retract port flexible hose of a main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator could cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for defects and damage of the retract port flexible hose on the left and right MLG retraction actuator, and replacement of the flexible hose if needed. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct defects and damage of the retract port flexible hose which could lead to an undamped extension of the MLG and could result in MLG structural failure, leading to an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 8, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q–Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone (416) 375– 4000; fax (416) 375–4539; email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com ; Internet http://www.bombardier.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 Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the **ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 7318; fax (516) 794–5531.

**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–2012–0036; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–142–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 based on 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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–14, dated June 17, 2011 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Testing has shown that in the event of a main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator retract port flexible hose failure, in-flight vibrations may cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. This could potentially lead to an undamped extension of the MLG, which


### 3190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules

may result in MLG structural failure, leading to an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

This [TCCA] directive mandates the [detailed] inspection of the retract port flexible hose [for defects and damage] and its replacement [installing a new retract port flexible hose], when required, to prevent damage to the MLG caused by undamped gear extensions.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Costs of Compliance

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 81 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,885, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. 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.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2012– 0036; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–
142–AD. (a) Comments Due Date We must receive comments by March 8,

2012.
(b) Affected ADs

None.
(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400, -401, and -402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001 and subsequent.
(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing Gear.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by test reports showing that failure of a retract port flexible hose of a main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator could cause excessive hydraulic fluid leakage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defects and damage of the retract port flexible hose which could lead to an undamped extension of the MLG and could result in MLG structural failure, leading to an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
(f) 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.
(g) Actions

Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for defects and damage of the retract port flexible hose of the left and right MLG retraction actuators, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours. If any defect or damage is found, before further flight, replace the retract port flexible hose with a new or serviceable retract port flexible hose in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22,

2011.
(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this
AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, 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 ACO, send it to Attn: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7300; fax (516) 794– 5531. 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. The AMOC


### 3191 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1 See, e.g., 74 FR 1828 (Jan. 13, 2009). approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–14, dated June 17, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–89, dated March 22, 2011; for related information.

Issued in Renton, Washington on January 13, 2012. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2012–1210 Filed 1–20–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION**

**16 CFR Parts 2 and 4**

**Rules of Practice**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule amendments; request for public comment.

**SUMMARY :**  The FTC is proposing to amend parts of its regulations. The proposed amendments would make changes to the FTC’s investigatory procedures in the interest of fairness, efficiency, and openness in all FTC investigations. The amendments would also revise the Commission’s rules governing reprimand, suspension, and disbarment of attorneys practicing before the Commission.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before March 23, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part (subsection III) of the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section below. Write ‘‘Parts 2 and 4 Rules of Practice Rulemaking (16 CFR Parts 2 and 4) (Project No. P112103)’’ on your comment, and file your comment online at https:// ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ rulespart2and4.1nprm , by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex Y), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For further information on the proposed revisions to the investigatory procedures, contact Lisa M. Harrison, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 326– 3204, or W. Ashley Gum, Attorney, (202) 326–3006, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. For information on the proposed revisions to the rule governing attorney discipline, contact Peter J. Levitas, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, (202) 326–2030, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This discussion contains the following sections:
I. Introduction II. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed Rule Revisions III. Invitation To Comment IV. Proposed Rule Revisions

I. Introduction 1. Need for Reform of the Commission’s Investigatory Process

The Commission has periodically examined and revised its Rules of Practice in the interest of clarifying the Rules and making the Commission’s procedures more efficient and less burdensome for all parties. 1 Especially in response to growing reliance upon and use of electronic media in document discovery, the Commission has reviewed its current rules governing the process of nonadjudicative investigations (‘‘Part 2 Rules’’).

Document discovery today is markedly different than it was only a decade ago. The growing prevalence of business files in electronic form—email, voicemail, text messages, blogs, word processing documents, PowerPoint presentations, videos, spreadsheets, and data files—has changed document discovery in several ways. First, information is no longer accurately measured in pages, but instead in megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, and more. Second, because electronically stored information (‘‘ESI’’) is widely dispersed throughout organizations, parties can no longer complete searches by merely looking in file cabinets and desk drawers. While searchers must still reach into file cabinets and desk drawers, they must also—and primarily—seek and retrieve information from mainframe computers, shared servers, computers, cell phones, smart phones, portable devices, and other media, as well as from third-party service providers. Third, because ESI is broadly dispersed and not always consistently organized by its custodians, searches, identification, and collection all require special skills and, if done properly, may utilize one or more search tools such as advanced key word searches, Boolean connectors, Bayesian logic, concept searches, predictive coding, and other advanced analytics. Fourth, because ESI may be readily altered, it must be preserved early in any discovery process—or even before discovery, when litigation is anticipated—and handled carefully at all stages to preserve its accuracy, authenticity, and ultimate admissibility. Fifth, even when investigations are conducted cooperatively, and are both well organized and well managed, there remains a substantial risk that mistakes and delays will occur as the responding party collects responsive materials, analyzes them for relevance and privilege, and prepares them for production.

The need to reform Part 2 Rules is also based in part on concerns that modern document discovery and its attendant complexities have become a source of delay in the Commission’s securing the information it needs to complete its investigations. Thus, the Commission views its reexamination of the rules as an opportunity not only to account for the widespread use of ESI, but also to improve the efficiency of investigations, and the willingness of targets and third parties to cooperate. 2. Overview of Proposed Rule Revisions

The proposed changes to the Part 2 Rules would expedite Commission investigations by: (1) Conditioning any extensions of time to comply with Commission processes on a party’s continued progress in achieving compliance; (2) conditioning the filing of any petition to quash or limit Commission process on a party having engaged in meaningful ‘‘meet and confer’’ sessions with Commission staff; and (3) removing the two-step process for resolving petitions to quash and establishing tighter deadlines for the Commission to rule on petitions.

The proposed revisions are also intended to streamline the rules and add structure to the agency’s investigatory process by consolidating related provisions that are currently scattered throughout Part 2. The rules also update investigatory practices, especially in light of the ubiquity of ESI, by including express references to ESI in the rules. Finally, they facilitate the enforcement of Commission compulsory process by clarifying the rights and obligations both of agency staff and compulsory process recipients.