16186 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The least squares function is an analytical tool 

that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared 

residual differences between the actual historical 

data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear 

curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting 

curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the 

data provided. 

7This selection is consistent with the 2010 

comparison. See DOE’s 2008 forecast spreadsheet 

models of the lamp types for greater detail of the 

estimates. The spreadsheet models are available at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/docs/ 

five_lamp_types_models.xls. 

among the data points and the best 

curve-fit linear line using the least 

squares function.6 The exponential 

curve fit is also a regression function 

and uses the same least squares function 

to find the best fit. For some data sets, 

an exponential curve provides a better 

characterization of the historical data, 

and, therefore, a better projection of the 

future data. 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601– 

3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE found that the 

linear regression and exponential 

growth curve fits produced nearly the 

same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the 

difference between the two forecasted 

values was less than 1 or 2 percent). 

However, for rough service and 

vibration service lamps, the linear 

regression curve fit projects lamp unit 

sales would decline to zero for both 

lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the 

exponential growth curve fit projected a 

more gradual decline in unit sales, such 

that lamps will still be sold beyond 

2018, and it was, therefore, considered 

the more realistic forecast. While DOE 

would be satisfied that either the linear 

regression or exponential growth 

spreadsheet model would generate a 

reasonable benchmark unit sales 

estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE is selecting the 

exponential growth curve fit for these 

lamp types for consistency with the 

selection made for rough service and 

vibration service lamps.7 DOE examines 

the benchmark unit sales estimates and 

actual sales for each of the five lamp 

types in the following section and also 

makes the comparisons available in a 

spreadsheet online at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

five_lamp_types.html. 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

For rough service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 6,080,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 6,829,000 rough service 

lamps in 2011. As this finding exceeds 

the estimate by only 12.3 percent, DOE 

will continue to track rough service 

lamp sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

For vibration service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 3,176,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 914,000 vibration service 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 

28.8 percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track vibration service lamp 

sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 50,652,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 31,619,000 3-way 

incandescent lamps in 2011. As this 

finding is only 62.4 percent of the 

estimate, DOE will continue to track 3- 

way incandescent lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

For 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 33,913,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 9,878,000 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is 29.1 

percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track 2,601–3,300 lumen 

general service incandescent lamp sales 

data and will not initiate regulatory 

action for this lamp type at this time. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

For shatter-resistant lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 1,659,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 1,210,000 shatter-resistant 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 

72.9 percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track shatter-resistant lamp 

sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

V. Conclusion 

None of the shipments for the rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps, 

3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed 

the statutory threshold for a standard. 

DOE will monitor the situation for these 

five currently exempted lamp types and 

will reassess 2012 sales by March 31, 

2013, in order to determine whether 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking is required, consistent with 

42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)–(H). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6746 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0269; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–105–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Aviation Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report that a passenger 

oxygen pipe at frame 10 was chafing 

against the forward lavatory rear 

structure, raising the risk of the oxygen 

pipe developing a crack. This proposed 

AD would require modifying the routing 

of and, if necessary, replacing, the 

oxygen pipe. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent rupture of the oxygen pipe 

which, in case of a cabin 

depressurization, would impair 

operation of the passenger oxygen 

distribution system. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 4, 2012. 

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– 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16187 

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 Dassault 

Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07606; 

telephone 201–440–6700; Internet 

http://www.dassaultfalcon.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: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1137; 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–2012–0269; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–105–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 2011–0070, 

dated April 18, 2011 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Inspections of two aeroplanes during cabin 

completions have shown that a passenger 

oxygen line at frame 10 was chafing with the 

forward lavatory rear structure. 

Design review of the area confirmed a local 

low clearance value which raises the risk of 

the oxygen line developing a crack. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to rupture of the oxygen 

line which, in case of a cabin 

depressurization, would impair operation of 

the passengers’ oxygen distribution system. 

To address this unsafe condition, Dassault 

Aviation have designed a modification with 

a new oxygen line routing. 

This AD requires an [general visual] 

inspection of the oxygen line for interference 

or damage and, in case of discrepancies 

[damage, or clearance less than 3 mm], 

accomplishment of the modification 

[including general visual inspections, and, if 

necessary, replacing the oxygen line/pipe] 

before next flight. It requires as well 

accomplishment of the modification of the 

oxygen line routing for the aeroplanes in 

which [clearance of 3 mm or more but less 

than 12 mm] were identified. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Dassault Aviation has issued 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, 

dated March 10, 2011. 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 

This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: The 

MCAI specifies that all airplanes must 

be modified before further flight if any 

discrepancy is found, and if no 

discrepancy, the modification must be 

done within 98 months or 4,000 flight 

cycles. This AD requires modification 

before further flight if damage or a 

certain clearance is found, and if a 

certain other clearance is found, 

modification within 98 months or 4,000 

flight cycles. No modification is 

necessary for airplanes having a 

clearance of 12 mm or more. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 11 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 11 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$10,285, or $935 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 16 work-hours and require parts 

costing $655, for a cost of $2,015 per 

product. We have no way of 

determining the number of products 

that may need these actions. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16188 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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. 

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: 

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA–2012– 

0269; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM– 

105–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by May 4, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Dassault Aviation 

Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in 

any category, serial numbers 3, 10, 13, 18, 19, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 

36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 

68, 71, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 93; 

except for airplanes on which the Dassault 

Aviation modification specified in Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, has been 

incorporated. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 35: Oxygen. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a report that a 

passenger oxygen pipe at frame 10 was 

chafing against the forward lavatory rear 

structure, raising the risk of the oxygen pipe 

developing a crack. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent rupture of the oxygen pipe which, 

in case of a cabin depressurization, would 

impair operation of the passenger oxygen 

distribution system. 

(f) Compliance 

You are responsible for having the actions 

required by this AD performed within the 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Inspection 

Within 2 months after the effective date of 

this AD, do a boroscope inspection of the 

passenger oxygen pipe for clearance and a 

general visual inspection for damage of the 

oxygen pipe, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, dated 

March 10, 2011. 

(h) Corrective Actions 

If during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD any damage is found 

or oxygen pipe clearance is less than 3 

millimeters (mm) (0.12 inch): Before further 

flight, modify the oxygen pipe routing, 

including doing a general visual inspection 

for chafing of the pipe and doing all 

applicable replacements, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, dated 

March 10, 2011. 

(i) Oxygen Pipe Routing Modification 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, oxygen pipe 

clearance is 3 mm (0.12 inch) or more but 

less than 12 mm (0.47 inch): Within 98 

months or 4,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, modify the routing of the passenger 

oxygen pipe, including doing a general visual 

inspection for chafing of the pipe and doing 

all applicable replacements, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, 

dated March 10, 2011. 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; 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. 

(k) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 

2011–0070, dated April 18, 2011; and 

Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X–174, 

Initial Issuance, dated March 10, 2011; for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 

2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6627 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0268; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–129–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 certain 

The Boeing Company Model 737–600, 

–700, –700C, –800, and –900 series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of incorrectly 

installed bolts common to the rear spar 

termination fitting on the horizontal 

stabilizer. This proposed AD would 

require inspecting for a serial number 

that starts with the letters ‘‘SAIC’’ on the 

left- and right-side horizontal stabilizer 

identification plate; a detailed 

inspection for correct bolt protrusion 

and chamfer of the termination fitting 

bolts of the horizontal stabilizer rear 

spar, if necessary; inspecting to 

determine if certain bolts are installed, 

if necessary, and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD would also require 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS