11072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1To view the glossary on the Internet, go to 

(http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp) and click 

on the ‘‘Adopted ISPMs’’ link under the ‘‘Standards 

(ISPMs)’’ heading. 

apples are effective and appropriate to 

manage pest risks associated with all 

varieties of M. domestica apples from 

Japan. Therefore, we propose to amend 

the regulations to allow the entry of all 

varieties of M. domestica apples from 

approved areas in Japan to the United 

States under the provisions of § 319.56- 

27. 

Specifically, we would revise the 

introductory text of § 319.56-27 to 

indicate that any variety of M. 

domestica apples may be imported from 

Japan under the conditions in § 319.56- 

27. We would also remove specific 

references to Fuji variety apples in the 

section heading and the regulatory text 

and instead refer generally to apples. 

We would also revise the term ‘‘national 

plant protection agency’’ to read 

‘‘national plant protection organization,’’ 

to make the regulations consistent with 

the International Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms (International 

Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

No. 5).1

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

For this proposed rule we have 

prepared an economic analysis. The 

economic analysis supports our 

conclusion that allowing imports of all 

varieties of M. domestica apples from 

Japan into the United States would have 

minimal economic impact on U.S. 

entities, large or small. Although the 

Fuji apple is the most common variety 

grown in Japan, it constituted only 0.1 

percent of U.S. apple imports in 2008. 

Allowing entry of other M. domestica 

varieties is expected to change the 

quantity of apple imports from Japan 

only minimally. The wide price 

differential between apples grown in 

Japan and in the United States suggests 

that apples imported from Japan are not 

a close substitute for the principal U.S.- 

grown apple varieties. Under these 

circumstances, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The full economic analysis may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room. (Instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room are provided under the 

heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.) In addition, copies 

may be obtained by calling or writing to 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow all 

varieties of M. domestica apples to be 

imported into the United States from 

Japan. If this proposed rule is adopted, 

State and local laws and regulations 

regarding all varieties of M. domestica 

apples imported under this rule would 

be preempted while the fruit is in 

foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public and would remain in foreign 

commerce until sold to the ultimate 

consumer. The question of when foreign 

commerce ceases in other cases must be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 

7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

2. Section 319.56-27 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading and 

the introductory text to read as set forth 

below. 

b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), by 

removing the words ‘‘Fuji variety’’ each 

time they occur. 

c. In paragraphs (b) and (c), by 

removing the word ‘‘agency’’ each time 

it occurs and adding the word 

‘‘organization’’ in its place. 

§ 319.56-27 Apples from Japan and the 

Republic of Korea. 

Any variety of Malus domestica 

apples may be imported into the United 

States from Japan, and Fuji variety 

apples may be imported into the United 

States from the Republic of Korea, only 

in accordance with this section and all 

other applicable provisions of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

March 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5114 Filed 3–9–10: 12:46 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21242; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NE–09–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 Turboshaft 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) for certain Turbomeca 

Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft 

engines. That AD requires initial and 

repetitive relative position checks of the 

gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades 

on Turbomeca Arriel 1B (that 

incorporate Turbomeca Modification 

(mod) TU 148), Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 

turboshaft engines that do not 

incorporate mod TU 347. That AD also 

requires initial and repetitive 

replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 

Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines. This 

proposed AD would require lowering 

the repetitive threshold for relative 

position checks on Arriel 1B engines. 

This proposed AD would also require 

lowering the initial and repetitive 

thresholds for replacement of 2nd stage 

turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 

engines. This proposed AD results from 

reports of new cases of failures of 2nd 

stage turbine blades since we issued AD 

2008–07–01. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent the failure of 2nd stage 

turbine blades, which could result in an 

uncommanded in-flight engine 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11073 

shutdown, and a subsequent forced 

autorotation landing or accident. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by April 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, 

France; telephone (33) 05 59 74 40 00, 

fax (33) 05 59 74 45 15 for the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Dickert, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: kevin.dickert@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7117, fax (781) 

238–7199. 

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–2005–21242; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NE–09–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 with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of the Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including, if provided, the name of the 

individual who sent the comment (or 

signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is the same as the Mail 

address provided in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

Discussion 

On March 17, 2008, the FAA issued 

AD 2008–07–01, Amendment 39–15442 

(73 FR 15866, March 26, 2008). That AD 

requires initial and repetitive relative 

position checks of the gas generator 2nd 

stage turbine blades on Turbomeca 

Arriel 1B (that incorporate mod TU 

148), 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft 

engines that do not incorporate mod TU 

347. That AD also requires initial and 

repetitive replacements of 2nd stage 

turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, recently notified us that an 

unsafe condition likely exists on 

Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 

turboshaft engines. 

Since AD 2008–07–01 Was Issued 

Since AD 2008–07–01 was issued, 

EASA reports that in engines that do not 

incorporate mod TU 347, new cases of 

gas generator 2nd stage turbine blade 

release have occurred, at lower blade 

service lives than previously reported. 

EASA issued AD 2009–0236, dated 

October 29, 2009, to optimize the 2nd 

stage turbine blade life limit and the 

replacement allowances for turbines 

currently in service in Europe, based on 

parts availability while keeping the risk 

level within acceptable limits. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed and approved the 

technical contents of Turbomeca 

Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 

A292 72 0807, Version E, dated October 

29, 2009, that describes procedures for 

the relative position check of 2nd stage 

turbine blades, and replacement of 2nd 

stage turbines that do not incorporate 

mod TU 347, with inspected 2nd stage 

turbines, or with 2nd stage turbines that 

incorporate mod TU 347, on Arriel 1B, 

1D, and 1D1 engines. We have also 

reviewed and approved the technical 

contents of Turbomeca MSB No. A292 

72 0810, Version C, dated July 24, 2009, 

that describes procedures for the 

relative position check of 2nd stage 

turbine blades on Arriel 1S1 engines. 

EASA classified these MSBs as 

mandatory and issued AD 2009–0236, 

dated October 29, 2009, to ensure the 

airworthiness of these Turbomeca Arriel 

engines in Europe. 

Bilateral Agreement Information 

This engine model is manufactured in 

France, and is type certificated for 

operation in the United States under the 

provisions of Section 21.29 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

21.29) and the applicable bilateral 

airworthiness agreement. Under this 

bilateral airworthiness agreement, EASA 

kept us informed of the situation 

described above. We have examined the 

findings of the EASA, reviewed all 

available information, and determined 

that AD action is necessary for products 

of this type design that are certificated 

for operation in the United States. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of this same 

type design. We are proposing this AD 

supersedure, which would require 

lowering the repetitive threshold for 

relative position checks on Arriel 1B 

engines. This proposed AD would also 

require lowering the initial and 

repetitive thresholds for replacement of 

2nd stage turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 

1D1 engines. The proposed AD would 

require that you do these actions using 

the service information described 

previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 587 Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 

1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines 

installed on products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 2 work-hours per engine to 

perform one inspection, and about 40 

work-hours per engine to replace the gas 

turbine discs and blades. The average 

labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Required parts would cost about 

$54,000 per engine. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$33,793,590. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
11074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed AD: 

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); and 

3. Would 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. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 

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 Federal Aviation Administration 

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 

removing Amendment 39–15442 (73 FR 

15866, March 26, 2008) and by adding 

a new airworthiness directive, to read as 

follows: 

Turbomeca: Docket No. FAA–2005–21242; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NE–09–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 

9, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2008–07–01, 

Amendment 39–15442. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1B 

(that incorporate Turbomeca Modification 

(mod) TU 148), Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 

engines that do not incorporate mod TU 347. 

Arriel 1B engines are installed on, but not 

limited to, Eurocopter AS–350B and AS– 

350BA ‘‘Ecureuil’’ helicopters. Arriel 1D 

engines are installed on, but not limited to, 

Eurocopter France AS–350B1 ‘‘Ecureuil’’ 

helicopters. Arriel 1D1 engines are installed 

on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS– 

350B2 ‘‘Ecureuil’’ helicopters. Arriel 1S1 

engines are installed on, but not limited to, 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation S–76C 

helicopters. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of new 

cases of failures of 2nd stage turbine blades 

since we issued AD 2008–07–01. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent the failure of 2nd 

stage turbine blades, which could result in an 

uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, 

and a subsequent forced autorotation landing 

or accident. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Initial Relative Position Check of 2nd Stage 

Turbine Blades 

(f) Do an initial relative position check of 

the 2nd stage turbine blades using the 

Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletins 

(MSBs) specified in the following Table 1. Do 

the check before reaching any of the intervals 

specified in Table 1 or within 50 hours timein-service after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

TABLE 1—INITIAL AND REPETITIVE RELATIVE POSITION CHECK INTERVALS OF 2ND STAGE TURBINE BLADE

Turbomeca engine model Initial relative position check interval Repetitive interval Mandatory service bulletin 

Arriel 1B (that incorporate mod TU 

148), 1D1, and 1D.

Within 1,200 hours time-sincenew (TSN) or time-since-overhaul (TSO) or 3,500 cyclessince-new (CSN) or cyclessince-overhaul (CSO), whichever occurs earlier.Within 150 hours time-in-servicesince-last-relative-positioncheck (TSLRPC).A292 72 0807, Version E, dated 

October 29, 2009, paragraphs 

2B(1)(a) and (b), or 2B(2)(a). 

Arriel 1S1 ....................................... Within 1,200 hours TSN or TSO 

or 3,500 CSN or CSO, whichever occurs earlier.

Within 150 hours TSLRPC ........... A292 72 0810, Version C, dated 

July 24, 2009, paragraphs 

2B(1)(a) and (b), or 2B(2)(a), 

(b), and (c). 

Repetitive Relative Position Check of 2nd 

Stage Turbine Blades 

(g) Recheck the relative position of 2nd 

stage turbine blades at the TSLRPC intervals 

specified in Table 1 of this AD, using the 

Turbomeca MSBs indicated. 

Credit for Previous Relative Position Checks 

(h) Credit is allowed for previous relative 

position checks of 2nd stage turbine blades 

done using the following Turbomeca MSBs: 

(1) MSB No. A292 72 0263, Update Nos. 1 

through 5. 

(2) MSB No. A292 72 0807, Original, and 

Update No. 1 through Version D. 

(3) MSB No. A292 72 0809, Update No. 1. 

(4) MSB No. A292 72 0810, Original, and 

Version A through Version B. 

Initial Replacement of 2nd Stage Turbines 

on Arriel 1B Engines 

(i) Initially replace the Arriel 1B 2nd stage 

turbine disk and blades with an inspected 

2nd stage turbine that does not incorporate 

mod TU 347 and is fitted with new blades 

or with a 2nd stage turbine that incorporates 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11075 

mod TU 347, using Turbomeca MSB No. 

A292 72 0807, Version E, dated October 29, 

2009, paragraphs 2B(1)(c) or (d), or 2B(2)(b) 

or (c), at the following times: 

(1) Replace before further flight on engines 

with a 2nd stage turbine disk having 

accumulated more than 2,200 hours TIS 

since-new or since-last-inspection, 

whichever occurs later, or with 2nd stage 

turbine blades that have accumulated more 

than 3,000 hours TIS since-new. 

(2) For engines with 2nd stage turbine 

blades having accumulated on the effective 

date of this AD, more than 1,800 hours TIS 

since-new, but 3,000 or fewer hours TIS 

since-new, replace before reaching any of the 

following: 

(i) 400 hours TIS from the effective date of 

this AD, or 

(ii) 3,000 hours TIS since-new on the 2nd 

stage turbine blades, or 

(iii) 2,200 hours TIS since-new or sincelast-inspection, whichever occurs later, on 

the 2nd stage turbine disk. 

(3) For engines with 2nd stage turbine 

blades having accumulated on the effective 

date of this AD, more than 900 hours TIS 

since-new, but 1,800 or fewer hours TIS 

since-new, replace before reaching any of the 

following: 

(i) 800 hours TIS from the effective date of 

this AD, or 

(ii) 2,200 hours TIS since-new or since-lastinspection, whichever occurs later, on the 

2nd stage turbine disk. 

(4) For engines with 2nd stage turbine 

blades having accumulated on the effective 

date of this AD, 900 or fewer hours TIS sincenew, replace before the 2nd stage turbine 

blades have accumulated 1,200 hours TIS 

since-new. 

Repetitive Replacements of 2nd Stage 

Turbines on Arriel 1B Engines 

(j) Thereafter, for 2nd stage turbines that do 

not incorporate mod TU 347, replace the 2nd 

stage turbine disk and blades before the 

blades have accumulated 1,200 hours TIS 

since-new. 

Initial Replacement of 2nd Stage Turbines 

on Arriel 1D and 1D1 Engines 

(k) Initially replace the Arriel 1D and 1D1 

2nd stage turbine disk and blades with an 

inspected turbine that does not incorporate 

mod TU 347 and is fitted with new blades 

or with a turbine that incorporates mod TU 

347, using Turbomeca MSB No. A292 72 

0807, Version E, dated October 29, 2009, 

paragraphs 2B(1)(c) or (d), or 2B(2)(b) or (c), 

at the following times: 

(1) Replace before further flight on engines 

with a 2nd stage turbine disk having 

accumulated more than 1,500 hours TIS 

since-new or since-last-inspection, 

whichever occurs later, or with 2nd stage 

turbine blades having accumulated more 

than 1,500 hours TIS since-new. 

(2) For engines with 2nd stage turbine 

blades having accumulated on the effective 

date of this AD, more than 900 hours TIS 

since-new, but 1,500 or fewer hours TIS 

since-new, replace before the 2nd stage 

turbine blades have accumulated 1,500 hours 

TIS since-new, or before the 2nd stage 

turbine disk has accumulated 1,500 hours 

TIS since-new, whichever occurs first. 

(3) For engines with 2nd stage turbine 

blades having accumulated on the effective 

date of this AD, 900 or fewer hours TIS sincenew, replace before the 2nd stage turbine 

blades have accumulated 1,200 hours TIS 

since-new. 

Repetitive Replacements of 2nd Stage 

Turbines on Arriel 1D and 1D1 Engines 

(l) Thereafter, for 2nd stage turbines that do 

not incorporate mod TU 347, replace the 2nd 

stage turbine disk and blades before the 

blades have accumulated 1,200 hours TIS 

since-new. 

Relative Position Check Continuing 

Compliance Requirements 

(m) All 2nd stage turbines, including those 

that are new or overhauled, must continue to 

comply with the actions specified in 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD, unless mod 

TU 347 has been incorporated. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(n) Installing a new turbine, P/N 0 292 25 

039 0, (incorporation of mod TU 347) 

terminates the requirements to perform the 

repetitive actions specified in paragraphs (g), 

(j), and (l) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(o) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(p) The EASA airworthiness directive 

2009–0236, dated October 29, 2009, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

(q) Contact Kevin Dickert, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: kevin.dickert@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7117, fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

March 1, 2010. 

Thomas A. Boudreau, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5028 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 234 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0039] 

RIN No. 2105–AE00 

Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections: Response to Requests To 

Extend Compliance Date 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is proposing to extend 

by 45 days, or until June 14, 2010, the 

compliance date of the provision in its 

final rule entitled ‘‘Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections,’’ published 

December 30, 2009, and effective April 

29, 2010, that requires airlines to 

publish flight delay information on their 

Web sites. This proposal is in response 

to the petition of the Air Transport 

Association of America (ATA), the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA) and 

the Air Carrier Association of America 

(ACAA) for an additional 90 days time 

for airlines to comply with the 

requirement to display flight delay data 

on Web sites in view of the extensive 

changes to carriers’ reporting systems 

that are necessitated by the rule and 

their contention that completion of 

these tasks is not possible by April 29, 

2010, the current effective date of the 

requirement. The Department 

acknowledges that additional time to 

comply with the posting of flight delay 

information on the carriers’ Web sites 

may be warranted to ensure the posting 

of complete and accurate information 

but is not persuaded that the full 90 

days requested by the carrier 

associations is needed. Therefore, this 

NPRM proposes to extend the 

compliance date for the provision in 

question for an additional 45 days, from 

April 29, 2010, to June 14, 2010. 

DATES: Comments on amending the final 

rule published December 30, 2009, at 74 

FR 68983, effective April 29, 2010, 

should be filed by March 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2010–0039 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2010–0039 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1