27142 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the investigation by alerting the 

target(s), subjecting a potential witness 

or witnesses to intimidation or improper 

influence, and leading to destruction of 

evidence. Disclosure could enable 

suspects to take action to prevent 

detection of criminal activities, conceal 

evidence, or escape prosecution. 

(ii) Application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) 

is impractical because the relevance of 

specific information might be 

established only after considerable 

analysis and as the investigation 

progresses. Effective law enforcement 

requires the OIG to keep information 

that may not be relevant to a specific 

OIG investigation, but which may 

provide leads for appropriate law 

enforcement and to establish patterns of 

activity that might relate to the 

jurisdiction of the OIG and/or other 

agencies. 

(iii) Application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2) 

would be counterproductive to the 

performance of a criminal investigation 

because it would alert the individual to 

the existence of an investigation. In any 

investigation, it is necessary to obtain 

evidence from a variety of sources other 

than the subject of the investigation in 

order to verify the evidence necessary 

for successful litigation or prosecution. 

(iv) Application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) 

could discourage the free flow of 

information in a criminal law 

enforcement inquiry. 

(v) The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) would be 

counterproductive to the performance of 

a criminal investigation. To notify an 

individual at the individual’s request of 

the existence of records in an 

investigative file pertaining to such 

individual, or to grant access to an 

investigative file could interfere with 

investigative and enforcement 

proceedings, deprive co-defendants of a 

right to a fair trial or other impartial 

adjudication, constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy of others, 

disclose the identity or confidential 

sources, reveal confidential information 

supplied by these sources and disclose 

investigative techniques and 

procedures. Nevertheless, Ex-Im Bank 

OIG has published notice of its 

notification, access, and contest 

procedures because access may be 

appropriate in some cases. 

(vi) Although the OIG endeavors to 

maintain accurate records, application 

of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) is impractical 

because maintaining only those records 

that are accurate, relevant, timely, and 

complete and that assure fairness in 

determination is contrary to established 

investigative techniques. Information 

that may initially appear inaccurate, 

irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete may, 

when collated and analyzed with other 

available information, become more 

pertinent as an investigation progresses. 

(vii) Application of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8) 

could prematurely reveal an ongoing 

criminal investigation to the subject of 

the investigation. 

(viii) The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(g) do not apply to this system if an 

exemption otherwise applies. 

(b) Other Law Enforcement. 

(1) Exemption. Under the authority 

granted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), Ex-Im 

Bank hereby exempts the system of 

records entitled ‘‘EIB–35—Office of 

Inspector General Investigative 

Records’’ from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), 

(e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) for the same 

reasons as stated in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, that is, because the system 

contains investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

other than material within the scope of 

5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

(2) Reasons for exemption. The 

reasons for asserting this exemption are 

because the disclosure and other 

requirements of the Privacy Act could 

substantially compromise the efficacy 

and integrity of OIG operations. 

Disclosure could invade the privacy of 

other individuals and disclose their 

identity when they were expressly 

promised confidentiality. Disclosure 

could interfere with the integrity of 

information which would otherwise be 

subject to privileges (see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(5)), and which could interfere 

with other important law enforcement 

concerns (see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)). 

(c) Federal Civilian or Contract 

Employment. (1) Exemption. Under the 

authority granted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), 

Ex-Im Bank hereby exempts the system 

of records entitled ‘‘EIB–35—Office of 

Inspector General Investigative 

Records’’ from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), 

(e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) because the 

system contains investigatory material 

compiled for the purpose of determining 

eligibility or qualifications for federal 

civilian or contract employment. 

(2) Reasons for exemption. The 

reasons for asserting this exemption are 

the same as described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

Dated: May 1, 2012. 

Sharon A. Whitt, 

Agency Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10903 Filed 5–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0425; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–273–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 717–200 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by multiple reports of cracks 

of overwing frames. This proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the overwing frames, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct such 

cracking that could sever a frame, which 

may increase the loading of adjacent 

frames, and result in damage to the 

adjacent structure and consequent loss 

of structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 25, 2012. 

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, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; email 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27143 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 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: 

George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5357; 

fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

george.garrido@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– 

2012–0425; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

NM–273–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 

We received multiple reports of 

cracks of overwing frames on Model 

MD–80 airplanes, and one report each 

on Model MD–90–30 and Model 717 

airplanes. The Model 717 airplane had 

accumulated 18,235 total flight hours 

and 14,542 total flight cycles. Due to 

similarity in frame design, the 

manufacturer determined the overwing 

frames at stations 674, 696, and 715 on 

Model 717 airplanes are susceptible to 

cracks. The cracks, caused by fatigue, 

originate in the upper radius of the 

frame inboard tab just below the floor. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in a severed frame, which may 

increase the loading of adjacent frames 

and result in damage to the adjacent 

structure and consequent loss of 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

Related Rulemaking 

The overwing frames on Model 717 

airplanes have the same design as those 

installed on Model MD–80 and Model 

MD–90–30 airplanes. AD 2008–13–29, 

Amendment 39–15592 (73 FR 38883, 

July 8, 2008), addresses cracked 

overwing frames on Model MD–80 

airplanes. AD 2010–05–04, Amendment 

39–16213 (75 FR 8465, February 25, 

2010), addresses cracked overwing 

frames on Model MD–90–30 airplanes. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 717–53A0034, dated October 5, 

2011. That service bulletin describes 

procedures for repetitive general visual 

and high frequency eddy current 

inspections to detect cracking of the 

overwing frames at stations 674, 696, 

and 715, left and right sides, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Related investigative actions include 

measuring crack length. Corrective 

actions include a blend-out repair, or 

replacing the cracked overwing frame 

with a new frame, depending on the 

results of the inspection. 

For the repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the overwing frames, the 

service information specifies an interval 

not to exceed 9,300 flight cycles; except 

after accomplishing a replacement, the 

next inspection is within 20,000 flight 

cycles after the replacement. 

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 these same 

type designs. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 129 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspections .............................. 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 per inspection cycle $0 $3,910 $504,390 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements/repairs that 

would be required based on the results 

of the proposed inspections. We have no 

way of determining the number of 

aircraft that might need these 

replacements: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Blendout repair .................................... 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 ............... $0 ................................... $1,020. 

Replacement of a frame station .......... 130 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,050 ........... Up to $86,977 ................ Up to $98,027. 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27144 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 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 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– 

2012–0425; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

NM–273–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by June 25, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 717–200 airplanes, certificated in any 

category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by multiple reports 

of cracks of overwing frames. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct such cracking 

that could sever a frame, which may increase 

the loading of adjacent frames, and result in 

damage to the adjacent structure and 

consequent loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Actions 

Before the accumulation of 20,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 8,275 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later: Do a general visual and high 

frequency eddy current inspection for 

cracking of the left and right side overwing 

frames at stations 674, 696, and 715; and do 

all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 717–53A0034, dated October 

5, 2011. Do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions before 

further flight. Repeat the inspections 

thereafter at the applicable time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 717–53A0034, dated 

October 5, 2011. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(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, Los Angeles 

ACO to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: 562–627–5357; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: george.garrido@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, California 90846– 

0001; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; email 

dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 

2012. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11022 Filed 5–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0448; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–016–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta 

S.p.A. Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta 

S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109S 

helicopters, which would require 

modifying the electrical power 

distribution system to carry a higher 

electrical load. This proposed AD is 

prompted by an electrical failure on an 

Agusta Model A109E helicopter that 

resulted from ‘‘inadequate functioning 

of the 35 amperes (amps) BATT BUS 

circuit breaker.’’ The proposed actions 

are intended to require modifying the 

electrical power distribution system to 

prevent failure of the circuit breaker, 

loss of electrical power to instruments 

powered by the ‘‘BATT BUS’’ system, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS