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

32433 

Vol. 77, No. 106 

Friday, June 1, 2012 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

10 CFR Part 1703 

Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule Update 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 10 CFR 

1703.107(b)(6) of the Board’s 

regulations, the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board is publishing its 

proposed Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) Fee Schedule Update and 

solicits comments from interested 

organizations and individual members 

of the public. 

DATES: To be considered, comments 

must be mailed or delivered to the 

address listed below by 5:00 p.m. on or 

before July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed 

fee schedule should be mailed or 

delivered to the Office of the General 

Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., 

Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004. All 

comments will be placed in the Board’s 

public files and will be available for 

inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday (except on 

federal holidays), in the Board’s Public 

Reading Room at the same address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Grosner, General Manager, 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 

625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, 

Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 694– 

7060. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA 

requires each Federal agency covered by 

the Act to specify a schedule of fees 

applicable to processing of requests for 

agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the 

Board’s regulations, the Board’s General 

Manager will update the FOIA Fee 

Schedule once every 12 months. 

Previous Fee Schedule Updates were 

published in the Federal Register and 

went into effect, most recently, on July 

12, 2010, 75 FR 39629. The Board’s 

proposed fee schedule is consistent with 

the guidance. The components of the 

proposed fees (hourly charges for search 

and review and charges for copies of 

requested documents) are based upon 

the Board’s specific cost. 

Board Action 

Accordingly, the Board proposes to 

establish the following schedule of 

updated fees for services performed in 

response to FOIA requests: 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR FOIA SERVICES

[Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)] 

Search or Review Charge ........................................................ $82.00 per hour. 

Copy Charge (paper) ............................................................... $.12 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate (approximately $.10 per page). 

Electronic Media ....................................................................... $5.00. 

Copy Charge (audio cassette) ................................................. $3.00 per cassette. 

Duplication of DVD ................................................................... $25.00 for each individual DVD; $16.50 for each additional individual DVD. 

Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams) ..... Actual commercial rates. 

Dated: May 23, 2011. 

Brian Grosner, 

General Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13295 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0547; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–234–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 a detailed inspection of the 

inboard and outboard main slat track 

downstop assemblies and a torque 

application to the main track downstop 

assembly nuts of slat numbers 1 through 

10, excluding the outboard track of slats 

1 and 10; a detailed inspection of all slat 

track housings for foreign object debris 

(FOD) and visible damage; and 

corrective actions if necessary. That 

NPRM was prompted by reports of fuel 

leaking from the front spar of the wing 

through the slat track housing. This 

action revises that NPRM by adding 

inspection results reporting. We are 

proposing this supplemental NPRM to 

detect and correct incorrectly installed 

main slat track downstop assemblies, 

which, when the slat is retracted, could 

cause a puncture in the slat track 

housing and lead to a fuel leak and 

potential fire. Since these actions 

impose an additional burden over that 

proposed in the 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 July 16, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

phone: 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. 

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: 

Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6440; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Nancy.Marsh@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–2010–0547; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–234–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 3, 2010 (75 

FR 31327). That NPRM proposed to 

require a detailed inspection of the 

inboard and outboard main slat track 

downstop assemblies and a torque 

application to the main track downstop 

assembly nuts of slat numbers 1 through 

10, excluding the outboard track of slats 

1 and 10; a detailed inspection of all slat 

track housings for FOD and visible 

damage; and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (75 FR 

31327, June 3, 2010) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(75 FR 31327, June 3, 2010), we have 

determined that the service information 

referenced in the NPRM, Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, dated September 15, 2009, 

contains inspections for certain part 

numbers that do not exist and errors in 

certain figures. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Bulletin 757–57–0068, 

Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011. This 

service information clarifies certain part 

numbers, downstop assembly 

components, and torquing requirements 

for downstop fasteners; and adds an 

option to replace the slat can instead of 

repairing it. This service information 

also corrects the part numbers to be 

inspected and corrects the errors found 

in Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, dated September 

15, 2009. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD 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. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (75 FR 

31327, June 3, 2010). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

NPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Agreement With the Intent of the NPRM 

(75 FR 31327, June 3, 2010) 

American Airlines (American) stated 

that, in general, it agrees with the intent 

of the previous NPRM (75 FR 31327, 

June 3, 2010). 

Concurrence With the Proposed 

Inspection and Follow-On Actions 

Continental Airlines (Continental) 

stated that it concurs with the proposed 

inspection and follow-on actions. 

Requests To Clarify Reporting Results 

Boeing, Delta Air Lines (Delta), and 

FedEx requested that we clarify if 

reporting the inspection results is 

required. Boeing stated that the 

reporting request is not shown in 

paragraph (h) of the NPRM (75 FR 

31327, June 3, 2010). Delta stated that 

reporting for this subject does not add 

safety to the rule. 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 1, dated 

July 19, 2011, specifies reporting and 

includes an appendix for reporting the 

inspection results. The extent of FOD, 

visible damage, and missing parts is not 

known. Inspection reports will help 

determine the extent of the safety issue 

in the affected fleet. Based on the results 

of these reports, we will determine if 

further rulemaking is warranted. 

Therefore, we have added new 

paragraph (i) in this supplemental 

NPRM (SNPRM) to require operators to 

report the inspection results. 

Request To Make the Inspection 

Repetitive 

American stated that a repetitive 

inspection program and/or airplane 

maintenance manual (AMM) revision 

may be necessary to prevent the unsafe 

condition. American justified its request 

by stating that the hardware may be 

changed using the AMM after the onetime inspection, and that maintenance 

could result in a loose torque to the 

downstop assembly nut. 

We disagree with revising this 

SNPRM to incorporate additional 

inspections or AMM revisions at this 

time. The SNPRM proposes a one-time 

inspection, and reporting. If we receive 

reports of discrepancies in the 

downstop hardware or of FOD in the 

slat cans, we may consider additional 

rulemaking to address the unsafe 

condition. If operators are doing 

maintenance on the slat track downstop 

hardware using the AMMs, they should 

follow the instructions in the AMM and 

correctly torque the nut. The torque 

values in the AMM are the same as 

those in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 

1, dated July 19, 2011. Boeing is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32435 

aware of any errors in the AMMs. 

Boeing has also added cautionary notes 

to the pertinent sections of the AMM 

advising the operators to correctly 

torque the nut, and to ensure that no 

FOD has dropped in to the slat can. We 

have not changed the SNPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Delay Issuing the Rule 

FedEx expressed concern over the 

availability of spare parts. FedEx stated 

that some replacement parts are not 

currently available from Boeing or are in 

very limited supply. We infer that 

FedEx requested we delay issuing the 

rule until additional supplies of spare 

parts are available. 

We disagree. The objective of this 

SNPRM is to detect and correct fuel 

leaks in the slat cans and prevent a 

potential fire. To delay this action 

would be inappropriate, since we have 

determined that an unsafe condition 

exists and that inspections must be 

conducted to ensure continued safety. 

Additionally, based on reports received 

to date, Boeing does not anticipate the 

need for significant numbers of part 

replacements. We have not changed the 

SNPRM in this regard. 

Request To Correct Service Information 

Continental and Delta requested 

resolution of the errors in the service 

information. 

Continental requested that the 

illustrated parts catalog be permitted for 

use in determining correct part numbers 

and alternative part numbers. 

Delta noted that the torque values in 

the service information may be incorrect 

and that the illustrations of proper 

assembly are incorrect. Delta also 

requested that we revise the NPRM (75 

FR 31327, June 3, 2010) to specify that 

the actions be accomplished using the 

better illustrations available in the 

AMM. 

We agree with the commenters that 

corrections to Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–57–0068, dated 

September 15, 2009, are needed. We 

have revised the SNPRM to require 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 1, dated 

July 19, 2011, which corrects the errors 

specified by the commenters. We have 

also added new paragraph (j) to this 

SNPRM to provide credit for actions 

accomplished before the effective date 

of the AD in accordance with Boeing 

Special Attention Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, dated September 15, 2009, 

provided the inspection results were 

reported as specified in that service 

bulletin. 

Request To Allow Replacement of Parts 

American requested that the NPRM 

(75 FR 31327, June 3, 2010) be revised 

to allow replacing damaged parts with 

new parts as an alternative to repairing 

damaged parts. American justified its 

request by stating that it may be easier 

to simply replace a damaged housing 

than to remove the damage. 

We partially agree. We agree with the 

commenter that this change is 

warranted because a replacement part is 

an acceptable repair. We disagree with 

changing the SNPRM, because Boeing 

has revised Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–57–0068, to allow 

either part replacement or repair. As 

stated previously, we have changed the 

SNPRM to refer to Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011. 

Request To Account for Errors in Figure 

11 of the Service Information 

American and Delta requested a 

provision in the NPRM (75 FR 31327, 

June 3, 2010) to account for errors in 

Figure 11 of Boeing Special Attention 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, dated September 

15, 2009. The commenters justified the 

request by stating that the dimensioning 

of the allowable blendout in Figure 11 

of Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 

757–57–0068, dated September 15, 

2009, is unclear. 

We partially agree. We agree with the 

commenters that the figure in Boeing 

Special Attention Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, dated September 15, 2009, is 

unclear. We disagree with revising this 

SNPRM, because Boeing has provided 

corrected service instructions in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

57–0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 

2011. As stated previously, we have 

changed the SNPRM to refer to this 

revision of the service information. 

Clarification of Inspection 

Requirements 

We have revised paragraph (g) of the 

SNPRM to clarify that the purpose of the 

detailed inspection of the inboard and 

outboard main track downstop 

assemblies of slat numbers 1 through 10, 

excluding the outboard main track 

downstop assemblies of slat numbers 1 

and 10, is to determine the assembly 

order and to detect missing or damaged 

parts. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this SNPRM 

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 

original NPRM (75 FR 31327, June 3, 

2010). 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 SNPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM 

This SNPRM would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the SNPRM and 

the Service Information.’’ This SNPRM 

also requires sending the inspection 

results to Boeing. 

Differences Between the SNPRM and 

the Service Information 

Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 

757–57–0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 

2011, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

SNPRM would require repairing those 

conditions in one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 645 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection ................................ 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 ................................ $0 $1,700 $1,096,500 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates 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– 

2010–0547; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NM–234–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by July 16, 

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 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of fuel 

leaking from the front spar of the wing 

through the slat track housing. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct incorrectly 

installed main track downstop assemblies, 

which, when the slat is retracted, could cause 

a puncture in the slat track housing and lead 

to a fuel leak and potential fire. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Torque Application 

Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of 

this AD, at the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011: Do the 

actions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this 

AD. 

(1) Perform a detailed inspection of the 

inboard and outboard main track downstop 

assemblies of slat numbers 1 through 10, 

excluding the outboard main track downstop 

assemblies of slat numbers 1 and 10, for 

correct assembly order and missing or 

damaged parts; perform a detailed inspection 

of all slat track housings for foreign object 

debris, visible damage, and missing parts; 

and do all applicable corrective actions; in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 1, 

dated July 19, 2011, except as required by 

paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. 

(2) Apply torque to the main track down 

stop assembly nuts to make sure they have 

been correctly installed, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011. 

(h) Exceptions to the Service Bulletin 

(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 1, dated July 

19, 2011, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after 

the date on this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance at the specified time 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–57–0068, Revision 1, dated July 

19, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action: Before further flight, 

repair the damage using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. 

(i) Reporting Requirement 

If any of the conditions specified in 

paragraph B.3., ‘‘Part 3—Appendix A: 

Inspection Results Report,’’ of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011, are 

found during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, submit a report of 

the inspection findings at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this 

AD, as specified in Appendix A of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2011, to 

Boeing through the Boeing Communication 

System (BCS). The report must include a 

description of any discrepancies found, the 

airplane serial number, and the number of 

landings and flight hours on the airplane. 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

(j) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for 

inspections and corrective actions required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the inspections 

and corrective actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using Boeing 

Special Attention Bulletin 757–57–0068, 

dated September 15, 2009, provided the 

inspection results were reported as specified 

in Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 757–57– 

0068, dated September 15, 2009. 

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden 

Statement 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32437 

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, AES–200. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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. 

(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. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6440; fax: 425– 

917–6590; email: Nancy.Marsh@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; phone: 

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 May 18, 

2012. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13055 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0115; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NE–40–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

S.A. Turboshaft Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain Turbomeca S.A. 

Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines. 

The existing AD currently requires 

accomplishment of the TU166 

modification. Since we issued that AD, 

we became aware of an accident 

involving an engine in-flight shutdown 

on a twin-engine helicopter powered by 

two Arriel 2S2 engines. This proposed 

AD would add the Arriel 2S2 engine to 

the applicability of engines requiring 

the TU166 modification with a different 

compliance time. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent rupture of a gas generator 

(GG) turbine blade, which could result 

in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown 

and a forced landing or accident. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 31, 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 Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220 

Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 

00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 

15. You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

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: Rose 

Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7772; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: rose.len@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–2011–0115; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NE–40–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 

On June 14, 2011, we issued AD 

2011–13–05, Amendment 39–16728 (76 

FR 40222, July 8, 2011) for Turbomeca 

S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft 

engines not modified by the TU166 

modification. That AD requires 

accomplishment of the TU166 

modification when the GG turbine is 

replaced or when the engine or Module 

M03 is going through overhaul or repair, 

or within 1,300 cycles-in-service after 

the effective date of that AD, whichever 

occurs first. That AD resulted from 

several cases of GG turbine blade 

rupture occurring in service on Arriel 2 

twin-engine powered helicopters, and 

one case on a single-engine powered 

helicopter. We issued that AD to 

prevent rupture of a GG turbine blade, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS