Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47329 

comments and not to restrict the issues 

that may be addressed. In addressing 

these questions or others, DOE requests 

that commenters identify with 

specificity the regulation or reporting 

requirement at issue, providing legal 

citation where available. The 

Department also requests that the 

submitter provide, in as much detail as 

possible, an explanation why a 

regulation or reporting requirement 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed, as well as 

specific suggestions of ways the 

Department can better achieve its 

regulatory objectives. 

(1) How can the Department best 

promote meaningful periodic reviews of 

its existing rules and how can it best 

identify those rules that might be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed? 

(2) What factors should the agency 

consider in selecting and prioritizing 

rules and reporting requirements for 

review? 

(3) Are there regulations that are or 

have become unnecessary, ineffective, 

or ill advised and, if so, what are they? 

Are there rules that can simply be 

repealed without impairing the 

Department’s regulatory programs and, 

if so, what are they? 

(4) Are there rules or reporting 

requirements that have become outdated 

and, if so, how can they be modernized 

to accomplish their regulatory objectives 

better? 

(5) Are there rules that are still 

necessary, but have not operated as well 

as expected such that a modified, 

stronger, or slightly different approach 

is justified? 

(6) Does the Department currently 

collect information that it does not need 

or use effectively to achieve regulatory 

objectives? 

(7) Are there regulations, reporting 

requirements, or regulatory processes 

that are unnecessarily complicated or 

could be streamlined to achieve 

regulatory objectives in more efficient 

ways? 

(8) Are there rules or reporting 

requirements that have been overtaken 

by technological developments? Can 

new technologies be leveraged to 

modify, streamline, or do away with 

existing regulatory or reporting 

requirements? 

(9) How can the Department best 

obtain and consider accurate, objective 

information and data about the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of existing 

regulations? Are there existing sources 

of data the Department can use to 

evaluate the post-promulgation effects 

of regulations over time? We invite 

interested parties to provide data that 

may be in their possession that 

documents the costs, burdens, and 

benefits of existing requirements. 

(10) Are there regulations that are 

working well that can be expanded or 

used as a model to fill gaps in other 

DOE regulatory programs? 

The Department notes that this RFI is 

issued solely for information and 

program-planning purposes. Responses 

to this RFI do not bind DOE to any 

further actions related to the response. 

All submissions will be made publically 

available on. http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 2, 

2012. 

Gregory H. Woods, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19392 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0805; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–117–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; rescission. 

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, 

and –400ER series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires an 

inspection to determine if certain motor 

operated valve actuators for the fuel 

tanks are installed, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. We issued that AD to prevent 

an ignition source inside the fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. Since we issued that AD, we 

have received new data indicating that 

the existing AD addresses that safety 

concern, but also introduces a different 

unsafe condition. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 24, 

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: Deliver to the Mail 

address above 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: 

Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6509; 

fax: (425) 917–6590; email: Rebel.

Nichols@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–2012–0805; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–117–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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

On October 19, 2009, we issued AD 

2009–22–13, Amendment 39–16066 (74 

FR 55755, October 29, 2009), for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 767–200, 

–300, –300F, and –400ER series 

airplanes. That AD requires an 

inspection to determine if certain motor 

operated valve actuators for the fuel 

tanks are installed, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. That AD resulted from fuel 

system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We issued that AD to 

prevent an ignition source inside the 

fuel tanks, which, in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in a 

fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 

of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD (74 FR 

55755, October 29, 2009) Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2009–22–13, 

Amendment 39–16066 (74 FR 55755, 

October 29, 2009), we discovered that 

the corrective action addresses that 

safety concern, but also introduces a 

different unsafe condition. The 

manufacturer is developing a more 

complete solution to address both 

unsafe conditions. We will consider 

additional rulemaking to require a new 

solution once that solution is 

developed, approved, and available for 

accomplishment. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, we have 

determined that existing AD 2009–22– 

13, Amendment 39–16066 (74 FR 

55755, October 29, 2009), must be 

rescinded. Accordingly, this proposed 

AD would rescind AD 2009–22–13. 

Rescission of AD 2009–22–13 would not 

preclude the FAA from issuing another 

related action or commit the FAA to any 

course of action in the future. 

Related Costs 

AD 2009–22–13, Amendment 39– 

16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29, 2009), 

affects about 397 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The estimated cost of the 

currently required actions for U.S. 

operators is between $67,490 and 

$134,980, or between $170 and $340 per 

airplane. Rescinding AD 2009–22–13 

would eliminate those costs. 

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 

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 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 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2009–22–13, Amendment 39–16066 (74 

FR 55755, October 29, 2009), and 

adding the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2012–0805; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–117–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 24, 2012. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This action rescinds AD 2009–22–13, 

Amendment 39–16066 (74 FR 55755, October 

29, 2009). 

Applicability 

(c) This action applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes, certificated in any 

category; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 767–28A0090, dated July 3, 

2008. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 

2012. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19238 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0158; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–118–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed to supersede an existing 

airworthiness directive (AD) that 

applies to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes. The proposed 

AD would have continued to require an 

inspection to determine if certain motor 

operated valve actuators for the fuel 

tanks are installed, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. That proposed AD would 

have added airplanes and, for certain 

airplanes, required additional 

inspections to determine if certain 

motor operated valve actuators for the 

fuel tanks are installed, and related 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS