28328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

commercial ventures were more 

distinctly and discretely developed. 

NRC Response 

The Commission established the 20- 

year timeframe to balance the need to 

collect sufficient operating history data 

to support an LRA with the needs of a 

utility to plan for the replacement of 

retired nuclear plants in the case of an 

unsuccessful LRA. 

The rule, allowing a license period of 

40 years, is in accordance with the AEA, 

which provides for a license period of 

up to 40 years (see Section 103(c) of the 

AEA). The rule is not intended to limit 

the number of adjudicatory challenges. 

Rather, the NRC regulations are 

designed to provide appropriate 

opportunities for hearings to affected 

parties. Reducing the number of 

potential adjudicatory challenges is not 

sufficient justification to revise the 

regulation. 

The comments related to Comment 

Category 8 do not provide a sufficient 

justification for the Commission to 

revise the rule. 

V. Determination of Petition 

The NRC has reviewed the petition 

and the public comments and 

appreciates the concerns raised. For the 

reasons described in Sections II and III 

of this document, the NRC is denying 

the petition under 10 CFR 2.803. The 

petitioners did not present any new 

information that would contradict 

positions taken by the Commission 

when it established the license renewal 

rule, nor did the petitioners provide 

new, significant information to 

demonstrate that sufficient reason exists 

to modify the current regulations. 

The Commission previously 

established the earliest date for 

submission of LRAs after soliciting and 

considering extensive comments during 

the 1991 rulemaking for 10 CFR 

54.17(c). In its 1991 Statements of 

Consideration, the Commission 

determined that a 20-year timeframe 

was reasonable for licensees to collect 

sufficient operating history and also 

sufficient for a utility to plan for 

replacement of retired nuclear plants in 

the case of an unsuccessful LRA. The 

petition did not provide new 

information to challenge this basis. 

Finally, the renewed license period of 

40 years is consistent with the AEA, and 

10 CFR 54.17(c) does not cause 

environmental reviews submitted to 

support LRAs to be in conflict with 

NEPA. The license renewal 

environmental review and SEIS 

consider reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts and alternatives 

in accordance with the provisions of 10 

CFR part 51. The rule change requested 

by the petitioners would not affect the 

process the NRC uses to implement 

NEPA. The petitioners do not provide 

new information or analysis to 

demonstrate that the regulations in 10 

CFR part 51 are insufficient for the NRC 

to comply with the requirements of 

NEPA. 

For these reasons, the NRC denies the 

petitioners’ requests for the NRC to 

modify its requirements related to the 

LRA period, to suspend license renewal 

reviews, and to apply a 10-year 

application timeframe to ongoing and 

future LRAs. 

VI. Availability of Documents 

The following table provides 

information on how to access the 

documents referenced in this document. 

For more information on accessing 

ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

Date Document 

ADAMS accession No./Federal 

Register 

Citation 

December 13, 1991 ............ Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ........................................................................................... 56 FR 64943 

September 27, 2010 ........... Earth Day Commitment/Friends of the Coast, Beyond Nuclear, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, 

C–10 Research and Education Foundation, Pilgrim Watch, and New England Coalition; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking.

75 FR 59158 

January 24, 2011 ................ Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI–11–01), In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to 

Amend 10 CFR § 54.17(c).

ML110250087 

January 31, 2012 ................ Public Comment Matrix for Petition for Rulemaking 54–6, License Renewal ................................ ML113540177 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of May 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11418 Filed 5–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0216; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–025–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) 

Model S–92A helicopters, which 

requires inspecting the tail rotor (T/R) 

pylon for a loose or missing fastener, a 

crack, damage, or corrosion and adding 

an internal doubler to the aft shear deck 

tunnel assembly. This proposed AD is 

prompted by the discovery of cracks in 

T/R pylons. The proposed actions are 

intended to detect a loose or missing 

fastener, a crack, damage, or corrosion 

on the T/R pylon and, if present, to 

repair the T/R Pylon and install a 

doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly or to replace the T/R pylon 

and install the doubler on the aft shear 

deck tunnel assembly to prevent failure 

of the T/R pylon or other T/R 

components, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 13, 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 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28329 

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 Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, 

Commercial Technical Support, 

mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT 06614; telephone (800) 

562–4409; email 

tsslibrary@sikorsky.com; or at http:// 

www.sikorsky.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, TX 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification 

Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 

238–7763; email nicholas.faust@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 

Sikorsky Model S–92A helicopters with 

a T/R pylon, part number (P/N) 92000– 

06102–041. This proposal is prompted 

by the discovery of cracks in the 

forward lower spar region of T/R pylons 

installed on Sikorsky 

Model S–92A helicopters. The T/R 

pylon supports the T/R and the 

horizontal stabilizer, and a crack in a 

T/R pylon could alter vibration 

characteristics of the T/R pylon, which 

could adversely affect fatigue lives of 

T/R components. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in failure of the 

T/R pylon or other T/R components and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

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 the 

same type design. 

Related Service Information 

We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 92–53–001, 

dated June 23, 2008 (ASB No. 92–53– 

001), and ASB No. 92–53–004B, 

Revision B, dated June 21, 2011 (ASB 

No. 92–53–004B). ASB No. 92–53–001 

specifies for a T/R pylon with more than 

500 flight-hours a one-time inspection 

of the T/R pylon ‘‘components and 

structure for obvious damage, cracks, 

corrosion, and security.’’ ASB No. 92– 

53–004B specifies a one-time 

replacement of the T/R pylon, P/N 

92000–06102–041, with T/R pylon, P/N 

92070–20058–042, and installation of a 

doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly. The ASB specifies a 

replacement schedule based on the T/R 

pylon’s hours for specified serial 

numbered helicopters. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

compliance with specified portions of 

the manufacturer’s alert service 

bulletins. This proposal would require, 

for helicopters with 500 or more hours 

time-in-service (TIS), within 25 hours 

TIS and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 10 hours TIS, inspecting the 

T/R pylon for a crack, damage, 

corrosion, or loose or missing fasteners. 

If a crack or an area of damage or 

corrosion is found or if there is a loose 

or missing fastener, before further flight, 

this proposed AD would require 

repairing the crack, damage, or 

corrosion, and replacing any loose or 

missing fastener and installing a 

doubler, P/N 92070–20087–101, on the 

aft shear deck tunnel assembly; or 

replacing the T/R pylon, P/N 92000– 

06102–041, with an airworthy T/R 

pylon, P/N 92070–20058–042, and 

installing a doubler, P/N 92070–20087– 

101, on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly. If there is no crack in the 

T/R pylon, this proposed AD would 

require replacing the T/R pylon, P/N 

92000–06102–041, with an airworthy 

T/R pylon, P/N 92070–20058–042, and 

adding a doubler, P/N 92070–20087– 

101, on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly, according to the following 

compliance schedule: 

• For a T/R pylon with 3,750 or more 

hours TIS, within 12 months; 

• For a T/R pylon with 1,500 through 

3,749 hours TIS, within 24 months; and 

• For a T/R pylon with 1,499 or less 

hours TIS, within 36 months. 

Replacing the T/R pylon, P/N 92000– 

06102–041, with an airworthy T/R 

pylon, P/N 92070–20058–042, and 

installing doubler, P/N 92070–20087– 

101, on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly, would constitute terminating 

action for the requirements of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 20 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry. We estimate that operators 

may incur the following costs in order 

to comply with this AD. It would take 

approximately 1 work-hour per 

helicopter to inspect and 120 workhours per helicopter to replace the T/R 

pylon and install the doubler. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour 

and required parts would cost 

approximately $339,080 per helicopter. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

total cost impact of the proposed AD per 

helicopter to be $356,505, and the total 

cost on U.S. operators to be $7,130,100, 

assuming 85 inspections per year are 

performed on each helicopter and 

assuming replacement of the T/R pylon 

and installing the doubler on each 

helicopter. 

According to the Sikorsky service 

information, some 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. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
28330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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): 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0216; Directorate Identifier 

2010–SW–025–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S–92A 

helicopters, with a tail rotor (T/R) pylon, part 

number (P/N) 92000–06102–041, certificated 

in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

loose or missing fastener, a crack, damage, or 

corrosion on the T/R pylon that could result 

in failure of the T/R pylon or other T/R 

components, and subsequent loss of control 

of the helicopter. 

(c) 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. 

(d) Required Actions 

(1) For helicopters with 500 or more hours 

time-in-service (TIS), within 25 hours TIS 

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 

hours TIS, inspect each T/R pylon for a 

crack, damage, corrosion, or a loose or 

missing fastener in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 

3.A.(4)(a) through paragraph 3.A.(4)(f), and 

referring to Figure 1 of Sikorsky Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) No. 92–53–001, dated June 23, 

2008, except you are not required to contact 

Sikorsky Customer Service Engineering per 

paragraph 3.A.(4)(c)1 of ASB 92–53–001, 

dated June 23, 2008. 

(2) If there is a crack, damage, corrosion, 

or a loose or missing fastener, before further 

flight, either: 

(i) If within allowable tolerances, repair 

each crack and each area of damage or 

corrosion and replace any loose or missing 

fastener; or 

(ii) Replace the T/R pylon, (P/N) 92000– 

06102–041, with T/R pylon, P/N 92070– 

20058–042, as follows: 

(A) Conduct the Total Indicated Run-out 

procedure on the No. 4 and No. 5 T/R drive 

shafts and remove the T/R pylon; and 

(B) Install the doubler, P/N 92070–20087– 

101, as follows: 

(1) For helicopters, serial numbers (S/Ns) 

920006 through 920082, on the aft shear deck 

tunnel assembly, P/N 92204–05103–041 or 

–045, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 

3.B.(1) through 3.B.(30) and while referring to 

Figures 1, 2, and 4 of Sikorsky ASB No. 92– 

53–004B, Revision B, dated June 21, 2011 

(92–53–004B). 

(2) For helicopters, S/Ns 920083 through 

920124, on the aft shear deck tunnel 

assembly, P/N 92204–05103–043, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1) through 

3.C.(21) and referring to Figures 3 and 4 of 

ASB 92–53–004B. 

(3) If there is no crack in the T/R pylon, 

replace T/R pylon, P/N 92000–06102–041, 

with T/R pylon, P/N 92070–20058–042, and 

install doubler, P/N 92070–20087–101, on 

the aft shear deck tunnel assembly as 

specified in paragraphs (2)(ii)(A) through 

(2)(ii)(B) of this AD, according to the 

following: 

(i) For a T/R pylon with 3,750 or more 

hours TIS, replace and install doubler within 

12 months. 

(ii) For a T/R pylon with 1,500 through 

3,749 hours TIS, replace and install doubler 

within 24 months. 

(iii) For a T/R pylon with 1,499 or less 

hours TIS, replace and install doubler within 

36 months. 

(4) Replacing T/R pylon, P/N 92000– 

06102–041, with T/R pylon, P/N 92070– 

20058–042, and installing internal tail cone 

doubler, P/N 92070–20087–101, on the aft 

shear deck tunnel assembly, constitutes 

terminating action for the requirements of 

this AD. 

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7763; email 

nicholas.faust@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a Part 

119 operating certificate or under 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. 

(f) Additional Information 

For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 

Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical 

Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT 06614; telephone (800) 562– 

4409; email tsslibrary@sikorsky.com; or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review 

this service information at the FAA, Office of 

the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, 

TX 76137. 

(g) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 5340, Fuselage Main, Attach Fittings. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 2, 

2012. 

Carlton N. Cochran, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11475 Filed 5–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS