### 38408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015–0071, dated April 30, 2015; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin 80–0081, Original Issue, dated: April 28, 1997; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin 80–0081, Revision No. 1, dated: May 11, 2010; or Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin 80–0081, Revision No. 2, dated: July 19, 2010, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–2466. For service information related to this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A, Airworthiness Office, Viale Generale Disegna, 1–17038 Villanova d’Albenga, Savona, Italy; telephone: +39 010 6481800; fax: +39 010 6481374; email: technicalsupport@piaggioaerospace.it; Internet: www.piaggioaerospace.it/en/ customer-support#care. You may review this 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 June 25, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–16293 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2015–2456; Directorate Identifier 2015–NM–032–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes** 

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

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

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking at a central part of the structure. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the skin hidden by the upper and lower splice fittings on both sides of the fuselage, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the hidden fuselage skin and cracking, corrosion, and other damage to the splice fittings and adjacent visible fuselage skin and structure that could lead to loss of a primary load path between the fuselage and the wing box, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2015.

**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 proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206 766 5680; Internet https:// www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
2456. Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 2456; 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 :**  Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the **ADDRESSES** section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 2015–2456; Directorate Identifier 2015– NM–032–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

While replacing a cracked underwing longeron fitting, a crack indication was found in the STA 786 ring chord at the tension bolt hole common to the wing front spar lower chord and the internal bathtub fittings. There were two similar reports of these findings from two separate operators. The airplanes in these reports had 14,367 and 18,354 flight cycles and 90,389 and 96,826 flight hours, respectively. The current inspections in the Model 767 Maintenance Planning Document are not sufficient to detect any possible fuselage skin crack in the area adjacent to the ring chord at STA 786 before the crack extends to a critical length. The fuselage skin in this area is hidden between the splice fittings on the external side of the fuselage and the bathtub fittings on the internal side. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of a primary load path between the fuselage and the wing box, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0263, dated January


### 38409 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

12, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the skin and splice fittings at stringer 29, body station 786 ring chord. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the

**ADDRESSES** section of this NPRM.

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. Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under ‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.’’ Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 53A0263, dated January 12, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with 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) whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 430 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:



### E STIMATED 

### COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators

Inspection ................. 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 per inspection cycle. $0 $765 per inspection cycle ....... $328,950 per inspection cycle.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. Explanation of ‘‘RC (Required for Compliance)’’ Steps in Service Information

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner’s/operator’s understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator’s maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
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– 2015–2456; Directorate Identifier 2015– NM–032–AD.


### 38410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by August 20,

2015.
(b) Affected ADs

None.
(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at the station (STA 786) ring chord at the tension bolt hole common to the wing front spar lower chord and the internal bathtub fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the hidden fuselage skin and cracking, corrosion, and other damage to the splice fittings and adjacent visible fuselage skin and structure that could lead to loss of a primary load path between the fuselage and the wing box, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Inspection

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0263, dated January 12, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do external ultrasonic and detailed inspections to detect cracking, corrosion, or other damage at the splice fitting location, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–53A0263, dated January 12, 2015.

(1) If cracking, corrosion, or other damage is not found, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 18,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Accomplishing a repair as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections in the repaired area only.

(2) If any cracking, corrosion, or other damage is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. The repetitive inspections of paragraph (g)(1) are terminated in the repaired area only.
(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 53A0263, dated January 12, 2015, specifies a compliance time ‘‘after the original issue date of this Service Bulletin,’’ this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 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 paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) apply.

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator’s maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(j) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 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, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24,
2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–16296 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION**

**16 CFR Part 313**

**RIN 3084–AB42**

**Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule**  **Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act**

Correction

In proposed rule document 2015– 14328 beginning on page 36267 in the issue of Wednesday, June 24, 2015, make the following correction:

On page 36268, in the first column, in the second full paragraph, in the second line, ‘‘August 17, 2015’’ should read ‘‘August 31, 2015’’.

[FR Doc. C1 2015–14328 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 1505–01–D**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT** 

**24 CFR Part 203**

**[Docket No. FR–5742–P–01]**

**RIN 2502–AJ23**

**Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Single Family Mortgage Insurance**  **Maximum Time Period for Filing Insurance Claims, Curtailment of**  **Interest and Disallowance of Operating Expenses Incurred Beyond Certain**  **Established Timeframes**

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This proposed rule would establish the maximum time period within which an FHA-approved mortgagee must file a claim with FHA for insurance benefits. HUD’s current regulations are silent with respect to a deadline by which a claim for insurance benefits must be filed with FHA. Due to the downturn in the housing market, which resulted in a significant increase in mortgage defaults, some mortgagees have refrained from promptly filing claims for insurance benefits and instead have opted to wait and file multiple claims with FHA at a single point in time. The uncertainty regarding a deadline by which a claim must be