### 67625 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today’s notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has concluded that today’s regulatory action, which would delete requirements to provide a credit rating or other credit assessment as part of an application for financial assistance or an application to enter into a conditional agreement to provide standby support for certain nuclear plant delays, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for the proposed rule. L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government’s scientific information. DOE has determined that today’s proposed rule does not contain any influential or highly influential scientific information that would be subject to the peer review requirements of the OMB Bulletin. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 609

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 950

Government contracts, Nuclear safety.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 25,
2011. David Frantz, Director of the Origination Division of the Loan Programs Office. John Kelly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Technologies.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend Part 609 of Chapter II and Part 950 of Chapter III of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:

**PART 609—LOAN GUARANTEES FOR PROJECTS THAT EMPLOY**  **INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES**

1. The authority citation for part 609 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254, 16511–16514.

**§ 609.6 [Amended]**

2. Section 609.6 is amended by: a. Removing paragraphs (b)(21); b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(22) through (b)(29) as (b)(21) through (b)(28).

3. In § 609.8 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 609.8 Term sheets and conditional commitments.** 

(a) DOE, after review and evaluation of the Application, additional information requested and received by DOE, and information obtained as the result of meeting with the Applicant and the Eligible Lender or other Holder, may offer to an Applicant and the Eligible Lender or other Holder detailed terms and conditions that must be met, including terms and conditions that must be met by the Applicant and the Eligible Lender or other Holder.

* * * * *

**§ 609.9 [Amended]**

4. Section 609.9 is amended by: a. Removing paragraph (f); b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (f).

**PART 950—STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS** 

5. The authority citation for Part 950 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 16014.

6. Section 950.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

**§ 950.10 Conditional agreement.**
* * * * *

(b) * * * (3) A detailed business plan that includes intended financing for the project including the credit structure and all sources and uses of funds for the project, and the projected cash flows for all debt obligations of the advanced nuclear facility which would be covered under the Standby Support Contract;

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–28242 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6450–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2011–1167; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–058–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319 and A320 Series Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the


### 67626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

products listed above. 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:

One operator has reported a torn out aspirator following scheduled (for on-ground testing purposes) deployment of the Left Hand (LH) OWS [off-wing escape slide].

Investigations have revealed that the aspirator of the off-wing ramp/slide system interferes with the extrusion lip of the OWS enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence.

This condition, if not corrected, couldresult in both LH and Right Hand (RH) offwing exits being unserviceable which, during an emergency, would impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.
* * * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 19,
2011.

**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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.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 Operations office 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 Operations 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 :**  Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1405; fax (425) 227–1149.

**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–2011–1167; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–058–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010–0210, dated October 21, 2010; corrected October 27, 2010 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

One operator has reported a torn out aspirator following scheduled (for on-ground testing purposes) deployment of the Left Hand (LH) OWS [off-wing escape slide].

Investigations have revealed that the aspirator of the off-wing ramp/slide system interferes with the extrusion lip of the OWS enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence.

This condition, if not corrected, couldresult in both LH and Right Hand (RH) offwing exits being unserviceable which, during an emergency, would impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries. For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the modification of the OWS enclosures on both sides.
* * * * * You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–25–1649, dated February 16, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 694 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 14 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 $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.


### 67627 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $825,860, or $1,190 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); and

3. 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 a regulatory 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 AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2011–1167; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–058–AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) We must receive comments by December 19, 2011.

Affected ADs

(b) None.
Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A319– 111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes; and Model A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers; except for airplanes delivered with Airbus Modification 30088 on which off-wing escape slides (OWS) having part numbers (P/N) D31865–111 and P/N D31865–112 are installed.
Subject

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

Reason

(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

One operator has reported a torn out aspirator following scheduled (for on-ground testing purposes) deployment of the Left Hand (LH) OWS [off-wing escape slide].

Investigations have revealed that the aspirator of the off-wing ramp/slide system interferes with the extrusion lip of the OWS enclosure during the initial stage of the deployment sequence.

This condition, if not corrected, couldresult in both LH and Right Hand (RH) offwing exits being unserviceable which, during an emergency, would impair the safe evacuation of occupants, possibly resulting in personal injuries.
* * * * *
Compliance

(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.

Actions

(g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify both left-hand and right-hand OWS enclosures, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–25–1649, dated February 16,
2010.

Parts Installation

(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an OWS having P/N D31865–109, P/N D31865–110, P/N D31865– 209, or P/N D31865–210 on any airplane. FAA AD Differences

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:

(1) The MCAI specifies that certain parts may not be installed after doing the modification. However, this AD specifies that those parts may not be installed as of the effective date of this AD.

(2) The applicability of the MCAI is limited to manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) equipped with Air Cruisers/Aerazur P/N D31865–109; P/N D31865–110; P/N D31865– 209; or P/N D31865–210 OWS; however, this AD is applicable to all MSNs with the exception of airplanes delivered with Airbus Modification 30088 on which OWS having P/Ns D31865–111 and P/N D31865–112 are installed.

(3) Although the applicability of the MCAI includes Model A318 series airplanes, the airplane models identified in the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–25–1649, dated February 16, 2010, are limited to Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes. Therefore, the applicability of this AD does not include Model A318 series airplanes.

Other FAA AD Provisions

(i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 3356; telephone (425) 227–1405; fax (425) 227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov

. 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(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.

Related Information

(j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010–0210, dated October 21, 2010, corrected October 27, 2010; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320–25–1649, dated February 16, 2010; for related information.


### 67628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 21, 2011. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–28368 Filed 11–1–11; 8:45 a.m.]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2011–1188; Directorate Identifier 2008–SW–46–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) Model**  **204B, 205A, 205A–1, 205B, and 212 Helicopters** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  This document proposes superseding four existing airworthiness directives (ADs) for the specified Bell model helicopters. Two of the existing ADs require an initial and repetitive inspection of certain part-numbered main rotor yokes installed on Bell Model 204B, 205A–1, and 212 helicopters. Two other existing ADs also establish a retirement life of 3,600 hourstime-in-service (TIS) for certain partnumbered main rotor yokes installed on the Bell Model 204, 205 series, and 212 series helicopters. Those ADs were prompted by reports of cracks in the main rotor yoke (yoke). This action would retain the requirements of the existing ADs and would apply these inspections and retirement lives to additional part-numbered yokes. This action would also increase the inspection frequency for certain yokes installed on a Bell Model 205B or 212 helicopter and would require replacing any unairworthy yoke. This proposal is prompted by the need to expand the applicability to include yokes produced under a Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) whose design approval was based on identicality with the affected Bell yoke parts and a recent discovery of a cracked yoke. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent cracking of a yoke, failure of the yoke, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • 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.

You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101, telephone (817) 280–3391, fax (817) 280–6466, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–5170, fax (817) 222–5783.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption

**ADDRESSES** . Include the docket number ‘‘FAA–2011–1188, Directorate Identifier 2008–SW–46–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light 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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOTs complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). Examining the Docket

You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information 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 Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is located in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the **ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

On September 13, 1979, we issued AD 79–20–05, Docket No. 79–ASW–25, Amendment 39–3572 (44 FR 55556, September 27, 1979) for Bell Model 204B, 205A–1, and 212 helicopters. That AD requires an initial and repetitive inspection at 2,400-hour intervals and corrosion protection and sealing of the yoke, P/N 204–011–102, of the main rotor hub assembly (hub), P/N 204–012–101. We issued Amendment 39–3626, November 21, 1979 (44 FR 70123, December 6, 1979) and Amendment 39–3662 January 3, 1980 (45 FR 6922, January 31, 1980) to AD 79–20–05. The amendments to the AD deleted references to the radius in the bottom of the pillow block bushing holes because the cracks did not initiate there. The cracks originated in the side of the hole near the top or through the center section of the yoke adjacent to the data plate.

On August 26, 1981, we issued AD 81–19–01, Amendment 39–4207, Docket 81–ASW–38 (46 FR 45595, September 14, 1981) for Bell Model 212 series helicopters. We also issued AD 81–19– 02, Amendment 39–4208, Docket 81– ASW–40 (46 FR 45595, September 14, 1981) for Bell Model 204 and 205 series helicopters. These ADs established a retirement life of 3,600 hours TIS for certain yokes installed on these model helicopters. These yokes previously did not have a retirement life. AD 81–19–01 also reduced the yoke retirement life below 3,600 hours TIS for those yokes installed on Model 212 helicopters used in external load operations involving more than four lifts per hour by requiring the operators to log additional hours for these type operations against the retirement life of the yoke. These ADs were prompted by three field reports of cracked yokes. These ADs were intended to establish retirement lives to prevent yoke failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

On March 4, 1993, we issued AD 93– 05–01, Amendment 39–8507, Docket No. 92–ASW–13 (58 FR 13700, March 15, 1993), for the Bell Model 212 helicopters to require repetitive inspections of yoke, P/N 204–011–102