2674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 

24, 2010, specifies reporting certain 

information to Boeing, this AD does not 

require that action. 

(w) Post-Repair Inspections 

The post-repair inspection specified in 

Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1234, 

Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, is not 

required by this AD. 

Note 2: The damage tolerance inspections 

specified in Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., 

Compliance, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 

24, 2010, may be used in support of 

compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 

129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 

129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions 

specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions and Figures 40 and 41 of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1234, 

Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, are not 

required in this AD. 

(x) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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. 

(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 the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005–13–27, 

Amendment 39–14164 (70 FR 36821, June 

27, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding requirements in this AD. 

(y) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 917–6447; fax (425) 

917–6590; email: wayne.lockett@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 

6, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–859 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0046; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–040–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Glasflugel 

Gliders 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Glasflugel Models Standard Libelle201B, Club Libelle 205, Mosquito, and 

Kestrel gliders. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as corrosion damage to the 

elevator control rod that could lead to 

failure of the elevator control rod, 

possibly resulting in loss of control of 

the glider. We are issuing this proposed 

AD to require actions to address the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 5, 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 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Glasfaser 

Flugzeug-Service Hansjo ̈rg Streifeneder 

GmbH, D–72582 Grabenstetten, 

Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: 

+49(0)73821629; email: info@streifly.de; 

Internet: www.streifly.de/. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

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 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 

329–4090; email: 

jim.rutherford@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–2012–0046; Directorate Identifier 

2011–CE–040–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:// 

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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2675 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 

2011–0213R1, dated November 8, 2011 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

A broken elevator control rod in the 

vertical fin on a Kestrel sailplane has been 

reported. The technical investigation 

revealed that water had soaked into the 

elevator control rod through a control bore 

hole and resulted in corrosion damage. The 

investigation concluded as well that the 

corrosion cannot be detected from outside 

the elevator control rod. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to failure of the elevator 

control rod, possibly resulting in loss of 

control of the sailplane. 

To address this unsafe condition, Glasfaser 

Flugzeug-Service GmbH have developed and 

published Technical Note (TN) TN 201–40, 

TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304– 

12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, TN 604–11, 

which provides instructions for elevator 

control rod inspection and replacement. 

For the reasons described above, EASA 

issued AD 2011–0213 to require a one-time 

inspection and replacement of the affected 

elevator control rod with an improved part. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH has 

issued Technical Note TN 201–40, TN 

205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 

304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 

604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 

(EASA translation approval dated 

September 9, 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 the 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 this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 54 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 6 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $333 per 

product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $45,522, or $843 per 

product. 

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 AD: 

Glasflugel: Docket No. FAA–2012–0046; 

Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–040–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by March 5, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the following Glasflugel 

models and serial number (S/N) gliders, 

certificated in any category: 

(1) Club Libelle 205, all S/Ns 

(2) Kestrel, all S/Ns, except S/N 85, 110, 

and 125 

(3) Mosquito, all S/Ns 

(4) Standard Libelle-201B, S/N 169 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of another 

country to identify and correct an unsafe 

condition on an aviation product. The MCAI 

describes the unsafe condition as corrosion 

damage to the elevator control rod that could 

lead to failure of the elevator control rod, 

possibly resulting in loss of control of the 

glider. We are issuing this proposed AD to 

require actions to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

(f) Actions and Compliance 

Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within 30 days after the effective date 

of this AD, inspect the elevator control rod 

in the vertical fin following Glasfaser 

Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 

201–40, TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, 

TN 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 

604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 

(EASA translation approval dated September 

9, 2011), as applicable to glider model. 

(2) If you find any discrepancy in the 

inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the elevator 

control rod with an elevator control rod that 

does not have a control bore hole, following 

Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical 

Note TN 201–40, TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 

303–25, TN 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, 

and TN 604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 

2011 (EASA translation approval dated 

September 9, 2011), as applicable to glider 

model. 

(3) Within 9 months after the effective date 

of this AD, unless already done as required 

by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, replace the 

elevator control rod in the vertical fin with 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1REVIEW OF MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION.—Five 

years after the date of enactment of this section, and 

every 5 years thereafter, the Postal Regulatory 

Commission shall conduct a review to determine 

whether the institutional costs contribution 

requirement under subsection (a)(3) should be 

retained in its current form, modified, or 

eliminated. In making its determination, the 

Commission shall consider all relevant 

circumstances, including the prevailing competitive 

conditions in the market, and the degree to which 

any costs are uniquely or disproportionately 

associated with any competitive products. 

2FY 2007 Annual Compliance Determination, 

March 28, 2008, at 113. 

an elevator control rod that does not have a 

control bore hole, following Glasfaser 

Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 

201–40, TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, 

TN 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 

604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 

(EASA translation approval dated September 

9, 2011), as applicable to glider model. 

(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install an elevator control rod with a 

control bore hole on the side. 

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(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. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(h) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011–0213R1, dated 

November 8, 2011; and Glasfaser FlugzeugService GmbH Technical Note TN 201–40, 

TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304– 

12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, 

Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA 

translation approval dated September 9, 

2011), for related information. For service 

information related to this AD, contact 

Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service Hansjo ̈rg 

Streifeneder GmbH, D–72582 Grabenstetten, 

Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: 

+49(0)73821629; email: info@streifly.de; 

Internet: www.streifly.de/. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 

11, 2012. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–928 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3015 

[Docket No. RM2012–3; Order No. 1108] 

Competitive Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is initiating 

a review to determine whether 

competitive products provide the 

appropriate minimum contribution to 

the Postal Service’s institutional costs. 

This document invites comments to 

facilitate examination of this question. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 5, 

2012. Reply comments are due: April 2, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

telephone for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or (202) 

789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Invitation To Comment 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3218 (2006), directs 

the Commission to promulgate 

regulations to ensure that competitive 

products, collectively, bear an 

‘‘appropriate share’’ of the Postal 

Service’s institutional costs. See 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a)(3). 

The initial Commission review of this 

issue determined that competitive 

products, collectively, annually should 

contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent of 

the institutional costs of the Postal 

Service. Order No. 43, October 29, 2007, 

paras. 3040–47. The PAEA further 

directs the Commission to revisit this 

question every 5 years. See 39 U.S.C. 

3633(b).1

Five years has passed since enactment 

of the PAEA. The Commission initiates 

Docket No. RM2012–3 to evaluate how 

to ensure that the appropriate minimum 

contribution to the Postal Service’s 

institutional costs is provided by 

competitive products. The Commission 

will decide whether its rule 3015.7(c), 

established in Order No. 43, which sets 

the 5.5 percent minimum contribution, 

should be retained in its current form, 

modified, or eliminated. 

When establishing the initial level of 

appropriate contribution from 

competitive products, the Commission 

tried to balance the risk of setting the 

contribution level too high with the risk 

of setting it too low. Given a very 

competitive marketplace where the 

Postal Service’s market share is 

relatively small, setting the contribution 

level too high could adversely affect the 

Postal Service’s ability to compete. On 

the other hand, establishing a markup 

that is too low could give the Postal 

Service an artificial competitive 

advantage. The Commission gave 

considerable weight to the historical 

contribution made by items categorized 

as competitive products by the PAEA. 

The Commission set the minimum 

contribution level at 5.5 percent of total 

institutional costs, in line with the 

competitive products’ estimated 

contribution to institutional costs of 5.4 

percent in FY 2005 and 5.7 percent in 

FY 2006. 

Since rule 3015.7(c) has been in place, 

the Postal Service’s competitive 

products collectively have covered more 

than 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s 

institutional costs. For FY 2007, the 

revenue from competitive products 

minus their attributable costs equaled 

5.66 percent of total institutional costs.2

For FY 2008, the contribution from 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS