63260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The cask systems are also periodically 

examined by the licensee to verify there 

are no adverse conditions that would 

impede thermal performance. Given the 

surveillance, monitoring, and inspection 

programs, the risk of immediate failure 

or emergency is remote. The NRC staff 

has determined that the current 

regulatory requirements provide 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety and the environment. 

While the petitioner referenced a 

proposed rule, the final rule (64 FR 

33178; June 22, 1999), revised the 

regulations for continuous monitoring of 

the dry storage confinement system to 

allow periodic monitoring consistent 

with the storage cask design 

requirements and to require that 

instrumentation systems for dry storage 

casks be provided in accordance with 

cask design requirements. In the 

rulemaking, the NRC determined that 

continuous, uninterrupted control 

systems and monitoring are required for 

wet storage systems that have active 

heat removal and other active systems, 

whose safety depends on the continued 

operation of these systems. Dry storage 

casks, whose safety solely relies on 

passive heat removal, do not require 

continuous, uninterrupted control 

systems and monitoring as wet storage 

does. The NRC revised the rules in 

§ 72.122(h)(4) and (i) to require 

monitoring and instrumentation systems 

that are consistent with the storage cask 

design basis. 

Finally, the examples that the 

petitioner cited, the Point Beach 

hydrogen gas ignition event, Surry seal 

failure, and potential degradation due to 

salt water environment, all occurred 

where air was present and not in an 

inert environment like the inside of a 

canister. The NRC is unaware of any 

degradation mechanism that would 

occur inside of an inert, sealed canister 

after being placed on the storage pad 

that would require licensees to open a 

storage canister and positively verify the 

neutron poison’s efficacy. 

Petitioner Request 11: Require HOSS 

at all nuclear power plants as well as 

away-from-reactor dry cask storage sites; 

and that all nuclear industry interim onsite or off-site dry cask storage 

installations or ISFSIs be fortified 

against terrorist attack. In addition, all 

sites should be safeguarded against 

accident and age-related leakage. 

NRC Response: Regarding comments 

about HOSS requirements at nuclear 

power plant ISFSIs and away-fromreactor dry storage sites, in the response 

to Petitioner Request 11, the NRC notes 

that it has conducted considerable 

analyses regarding the safety of dry 

storage casks in use in the United States. 

The agency has, consistently, found that 

the robust nature of dry storage systems 

approved by the NRC under 10 CFR part 

72 assures the protection of public 

health, safety, and security and 

therefore has not mandated HOSS. 

Nevertheless, the NRC is in the process 

of reviewing a potential rulemaking 

regarding enhancements to the security 

of spent fuel dry storage facilities (SRM– 

SECY–10–0114 and SRM–SECY–07– 

0148—ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML103210025 and ML073530119, 

respectively). Because Petitioner 

Request 11 raises issues that are relevant 

to this rulemaking, the NRC will address 

this item in the context of this proposed 

rule. Further information regarding NRC 

action on Petitioner Request 11 will be 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching Docket ID NRC–2009– 

0558. 

Petitioner Request 12: Establish 

funding to conduct on-going studies to 

provide the data required to accurately 

define and monitor for age-related 

material degradation, assess the 

structural integrity of the casks and fuel 

cladding in ‘‘interim’’ waste storage. 

NRC Response: The NRC is denying 

Petitioner Request 12 because 

rulemaking is not the appropriate 

mechanism for establishing funding for 

conducting research. The NRC has 

initiated independent research on the 

impacts of long term storage of SNF for 

multiple renewal periods, cooperated 

with other interested agencies to 

support materials aging studies, and is 

participating in an Electric Power 

Research Institute program that 

evaluates materials aging issues. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons previously discussed, 

the NRC is denying nine of the 

petitioner’s requests (Requests 1, 2, 3, 5 

through 8, 10, and 12), will consider one 

request in the rulemaking process 

(Request 11), and is deferring action on 

two requests (Requests 4 and 9). The 

docket for PRM–72–6 will remain open 

until the Commission acts, at which 

time the NRC will publish another 

document in the Federal Register to 

notice the Commission’s decision. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of October 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25366 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1088; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–SW–005–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson 

Helicopter Company Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Robinson Helicopter Company 

(Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II 

helicopters equipped with emergency 

floats, which would require replacing 

the inflation valve assembly. The 

proposed AD is prompted by failure of 

the emergency floats to deploy during a 

factory test because a needle was 

binding within the inflation valve 

assembly. The proposed actions are 

intended to prevent the failure of the 

floats to inflate during an emergency 

landing. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 17, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket: You may 

examine the AD docket on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or in 

person at the Docket Operations Office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this proposed 

AD, the economic evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Robinson 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63261 

Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport 

Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone 

(310) 539–0508; fax (310) 539–5198; or 

at http://www.robinsonheli.com. You 

may review a copy of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Venessa Stiger, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety/Mechanical & 

Environmental Systems, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; telephone (562) 627–5337; email 

venessa.stiger@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

We propose to adopt a new AD for 

Robinson Model R44 and Model R44 II 

helicopters equipped with emergency 

floats. The AD proposes replacing the 

inflation valve assembly. The needle 

that releases helium from a cylinder was 

binding within the float inflation valve 

assembly. These helicopters often 

transport people and goods over water. 

Consequently, this unsafe condition 

presents risks to a crew and its 

passengers should the helicopter need 

to land in water during an emergency. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all known relevant 

information and determined that an 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of 

these same type designs. 

Related Service Information 

We have reviewed Robinson R44 

Service Bulletin SB–80, dated 

September 7, 2011 (SB), which 

describes procedures for upgrading 

certain valve assemblies within the next 

250 flight hours or by June 30, 2012, 

whichever occurs first. The SB reports 

that during a factory test of pop-out 

emergency floats the floats failed to 

inflate because of a stuck cylinder valve. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This AD would require, within 1 year 

or 500 hours time-in-service (TIS), 

whichever occurs first, replacing the 

inflation valve assembly. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

This proposed AD would require 

replacing the inflation valve assembly 

within 1 year or 500 hours TIS, 

whichever occurs first. The SB specifies 

replacing the assembly within 250 flight 

hours or by June 30, 2012, whichever 

occurs first. We used the Monitor 

Safety/Analyze Data (MSAD) process 

and were able to predict when the next 

occurrence would likely occur if no 

repairs were completed. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 165 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry and that the labor cost would 

average $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these assumptions, we estimate that 

replacing the inflation valve assembly 

would take 2.5 work-hours for a labor 

cost of about $213. Parts would cost 

$850 to $955 for a total cost per 

helicopter of $1,063 to $1,168. 

According to Robinson’s service 

information, some or all of the costs of 

this proposed AD may be covered under 

warranty, thereby reducing the cost 

impact on affected individuals. We do 

not control warranty coverage. 

Accordingly, we have included all costs 

in our cost estimate. 

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, 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 to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
63262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Robinson Helicopter Company: Docket No. 

FAA–2012–1088; Directorate Identifier 

2012–SW–005–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter 

Company (Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II 

helicopters with emergency floats equipped 

with an inflation valve assembly, part 

number (P/N) D757–1, not engraved with 

‘‘D758–4’’ or modified with modification 

B900–8, and containing a housing assembly, 

P/N D758–1, Revision C or prior, certificated 

in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

binding of the needle within the float 

inflation valve assembly, which has resulted 

in the emergency floats failing to inflate. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

Comments are due December 17, 2012. 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Action 

Within 1 year or 500 hours time-in-service 

(TIS), whichever occurs first, replace the 

inflation valve assembly with an airworthy 

inflation valve assembly, P/N D757–1R. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Venessa Stiger, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin 

Safety/Mechanical & Environmental Systems, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; telephone (562) 627–5337; email 

venessa.stiger@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(g) Additional Information 

Robinson R44 Service Bulletin SB–80, 

dated September 7, 2011, which is not 

incorporated by reference, contains 

additional information about the subject of 

this AD. For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter 

Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 

90505; telephone (310) 539–0508; fax (310) 

539–5198; or at http:// 

www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You 

may review a copy of information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 3212, Emergency Flotation Section. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 2, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25428 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1087; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–SW–32–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

France Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Eurocopter France (ECF) Model 

AS332C, L, and L1 helicopters to 

require an initial and repetitive 

inspections of the outer skin, butt strap, 

and fuselage frame for a crack and 

modification of the helicopter. This 

proposed AD is prompted by an AD 

issued by the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA), which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union, which states that a 

crack was discovered in a fuselage frame 

during a daily check. The proposed 

actions are intended to detect a crack, to 

prevent loss of airframe structural 

integrity and subsequent loss of control 

of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 17, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket: You may 

examine the AD docket on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or in 

person at the Docket Operations Office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this proposed 

AD, the economic evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact American 

Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4005; 

telephone (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 

641–3710; or at http:// 

www.eurocopter.com. You may review 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham 

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 

76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

gary.b.roach@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

EASA has issued EASA AD No. 2008– 

0035–E, dated February 21, 2008, to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1