Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16361 

technical review of the application. The 

petitioner also notes that on February 1, 

2010, the current administration 

proposed that the funding for the Yucca 

Mountain repository be discontinued for 

what the petitioner believes are political 

reasons. The petitioner states that the 

proposed update of the NRC’s Waste 

Confidence Decision and proposed rule 

that the NRC published on October 9, 

2008 (73 FR 59547), specifically Finding 

2 (73 FR 59561), indicates that the NRC 

found reasonable assurance that a 

mined geologic repository for 

permanent disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel would be available within 50–60 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of any 

reactor. 

The petitioner also states that the DOE 

Director of the Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management 

expressed concern about adequate 

funding of the Yucca Mountain 

repository when DOE informed 

Congress that Yucca Mountain could be 

ready to accept spent nuclear fuel in 

2020. The petitioner notes that the NRC 

denied a 2005 petition for rulemaking 

(PRM–51–8) by declining to define 

‘‘availability’’ of a repository based on a 

presumption that an acceptable disposal 

site for spent nuclear fuel would 

become available ‘‘at some undefined 

time in the future.’’ (73 FR 59561.) The 

petitioner cites, Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) v. NRC, 574 

F.2d 633 (DC Cir. 1976), as determining 

that the NRC’s waste confidence 

decision must demonstrate compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), by 

assuring that ‘‘safe and adequate storage 

methods [for spent nuclear fuel] are 

technologically and economically 

feasible.’’ However, the petitioner states 

that the NRDC decision did not 

anticipate the ‘‘current political reality.’’ 

The petitioner has concluded that the 

current administration’s proposed 

decision to no longer fund Yucca 

Mountain now places the possibility of 

construction and licensing of a 

permanent repository for spent nuclear 

fuel from U.S. nuclear power facilities 

and licensees in jeopardy. The 

petitioner requests that the NRC cease 

licensing new nuclear power plants and 

begin to orderly phase out existing 

operating nuclear power plants. The 

petitioner also requests that § 51.23, 

‘‘Temporary storage of spent fuel after 

cessation of reactor operation—generic 

determination of no significant 

environmental impact,’’ be revoked. The 

petitioner has concluded that the NRC 

cannot rely on existing regulations to 

make a determination on issuance of a 

construction authorization or license for 

a mined geologic repository at a location 

that has not been identified at an 

undetermined future time. The 

petitioner has also concluded that the 

NRC needs to strengthen the current 

regulations by adding additional 

requirements that address the political 

considerations of siting a mined 

geologic repository. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, March 25, 

2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7405 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0606; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NE–11–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; CFM 

International, S.A. Models CFM56–3 

and –3B Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This supplemental NPRM 

revises an earlier proposed 

airworthiness directive (AD), for certain 

CFM International, S.A. models 

CFM56–3 and –3B turbofan engines. 

That proposed AD would have required 

initial and repetitive inspections for 

damage to the fan blades. That proposed 

AD resulted from a report of a failed fan 

blade with severe out-of-limit wear on 

the underside of the blade platform 

where it contacts the damper. This 

supplemental NPRM revises the 

proposed AD to reduce the initial 

inspection compliance threshold, to 

correct the engine model designations 

affected, and to clarify some of the 

inspection wording in the compliance 

section. This supplemental NPRM 

results from a report of a failed fan blade 

with severe out-of-limit wear on the 

underside of the blade platform where 

it contacts the damper. We are 

proposing this supplemental NPRM to 

prevent failure of multiple fan blades, 

which could result in an uncontained 

failure of the engine and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this supplemental NPRM by May 17, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

You can get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

CFM International, S. A., Technical 

Publication Department, 1 Neumann 

Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone 

(513) 552–2800; fax (513) 552–2816. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: 

antonio.cancelliere@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7751; fax (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send us any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposal. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0606; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NE–11–AD’’ in the subject line 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 AD. 

Using the search function of the Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including, if provided, the name of the 

individual who sent the comment (or 

signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

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 the 

same as the Mail address provided in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

Discussion 

On July 16, 2009, we proposed to 

amend part 39 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an 

AD for CFM International, S.A. models 

CFM56–3B1 and–3B2 turbofan engines. 

That action proposed to require initial 

and repetitive fan blade inspections. 

That proposed AD resulted from a 

report of a failed fan blade with severe 

out-of-limit wear on the underside of 

the blade platform where it contacts the 

damper. 

Since we issued the proposed AD, we 

discovered that we need to make some 

changes to reduce the initial inspection 

compliance threshold, to correct the 

engine model designations affected, and 

to clarify some of the inspection 

wording in the compliance section of 

the proposed AD. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of that proposed AD. We 

have considered the comments received. 

Request to Correct the Engine Model 

Designations Affected 

One commenter, CFM International, 

S.A., requests that we correct the engine 

model designations affected. The 

commenter states that the proposed AD 

models of CFM56–3B1 and –3B2 are 

incorrect and should be changed to 

CFM56–3–B1 and –3B–2. 

We partially agree. We agree that we 

listed incorrect model designations. We 

corrected them in this supplemental 

NPRM to agree with the CFM56 Type 

Certificate Data Sheet E2GL title block, 

which lists the affected models as 

CFM56–3 and –3B. We do not agree that 

the model designations should be solely 

listed as CFM56–3–B1 and –3B–2. 

However, because CFM International, 

S.A. has added to the basic engine 

model number on the engine nameplate 

to identify minor variations in engine 

configuration, installation components, 

or reduced ratings peculiar to aircraft 

installation requirements, engine 

models CFM56–3–B1 and CFM56–3B–2 

are also affected by this proposed AD. 

Request To Add an Installation 

Prohibition 

CFM International, S.A. requests that 

we add an installation prohibition to 

our proposed AD applicability, that the 

installation of 25 degrees midspan 

shroud fan blades is not allowed on the 

CFM56–3C engine model. 

We do not agree. The applicability is 

clear that the proposed AD does not 

include the –3C engine model, as it does 

not list that model. We did not change 

the NPRM. 

Request To Change the Initial 

Inspection Threshold 

CFM International, S.A. requests that 

we change the initial inspection 

threshold from 3,000 cycles-in-service 

(CIS) to within 3 to 6 months of AD 

issuance to better harmonize our 

compliance with European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD 2009–036 (3 months) 

or with CFM International, S.A. 

CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72–1067, dated 

February 15, 2007 (6 months). 

We do not agree that a 3 to 6 month 

interval is appropriate, as the passage of 

time without service is unrelated to the 

progression of the unsafe condition. We 

do agree that the initial inspection 

threshold of 3,000 CIS is too long. We 

reduced the initial inspection threshold 

to 900 CIS in the NPRM. 

Differences Between the Supplemental 

NPRM and the Manufacturer’s Service 

Information 

CFM International Service Bulletin 

(SB) No. CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72–1067, 

dated February 15, 2007, requires an 

initial inspection within 6 months. This 

supplemental NPRM would require the 

initial inspection within 900 CIS after 

the effective date of the supplemental 

NPRM. CFM International SB No. 

CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72–1067, dated 

February 15, 2007, also requires a 

repetitive inspection within 1,500 to 

3,000 cycles-since-last inspection 

(CSLI). This supplemental NPRM would 

require the repetitive inspection within 

3,000 CSLI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Supplemental NPRM 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of this same 

type design. We are proposing this AD, 

which would require performing initial 

and repetitive inspections of the fan 

blade for wear. The supplemental 

NPRM would require you to use the 

service information described 

previously to perform these actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this supplemental 

NPRM would affect 50 engines installed 

on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it would take about 8 

work-hours per engine to perform the 

proposed actions, and that the average 

labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Required parts would cost about 

$38,000 per engine. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the total cost of the 

supplemental NPRM to U.S. operators to 

be $1,932,000. 

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 have determined that this 

supplemental NPRM would not have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. This supplemental NPRM 

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 that the 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. Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16363 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this supplemental NPRM. See the 

ADDRESSES section for a location to 

examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Under the authority delegated to me 

by the Administrator, the Federal 

Aviation Administration 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: 

CFM International, S.A.: Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0606; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NE–11–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 

17, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to CFM International, 

S.A. models CFM56–3 and –3B turbofan 

engines with 25 degrees midspan shroud fan 

blades, part numbers (P/Ns) 9527M99P08, 

9527M99P09, 9527M99P10, 9527M99P11, 

1285M39P01, or fan blade pairs, P/Ns 335– 

088–901–0, 335–088–902–0, 335–088–903–0, 

and 335–088–904–0 installed. These engines 

are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 

737 series airplanes. 

(d) CFM International, S.A. has added to 

the basic engine model number on the engine 

nameplate to identify minor variations in 

engine configuration, installation 

components, or reduced ratings peculiar to 

aircraft installation requirements. 

(e) Those engines marked on the engine 

data plate as CFM56–3–B1 are included in 

this AD as CFM56–3 turbofan engines. 

(f) Those engines marked on the engine 

data plate as CFM56–3B–2 are included in 

this AD as CFM56–3B turbofan engines. 

Unsafe Condition 

(g) This AD results from a report of a failed 

fan blade with severe out-of-limit wear on the 

underside of the blade platform where it 

contacts the damper. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent failure of multiple fan blades, 

which could result in an uncontained failure 

of the engine and damage to the airplane. 

Compliance 

(h) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection for Wear 

(i) Within 900 cycles-in-service after the 

effective date of this AD, perform an on-wing 

or in-shop inspection of the fan blade and 

damper for wear. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) 

through 3.A.(5) or paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 

3.B.(5) respectively, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of CFM International Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72– 

1067, dated February 15, 2007. 

(j) If you find out-of-limit wear on at least 

one fan blade platform underside, perform 

the additional inspections and disposition 

the parts, as specified in paragraphs 3.A.(3) 

and 3.A.(5) or paragraphs 3.B.(3) and 3.B.(5) 

respectively, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of CFM International SB No. 

CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72–1067, dated 

February 15, 2007. 

(k) Thereafter, within intervals not to 

exceed 3,000 cycles-since-last inspection, 

perform an on-wing or in-shop inspection for 

wear. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(5) 

or paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(5) 

respectively, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of CFM International SB No. 

CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 72–1067, dated 

February 15, 2007. 

(l) If you find wear on at least one fan blade 

platform underside, perform additional 

inspections and disposition the parts, as 

specified in paragraphs 3.A.(3) and 3.A.(5) or 

paragraphs 3.B.(3) and 3.B.(5) respectively, of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of CFM 

International SB No. CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 

72–1067, dated February 15, 2007. 

Installation Prohibition 

(m) After the effective date of this AD, 

don’t install any 25 degrees midspan shroud 

fan blades, P/Ns 9527M99P08, 9527M99P09, 

9527M99P10, 9527M99P11, 1285M39P01, or 

fan blade pairs, P/Ns 335–088–901–0, 335– 

088–902–0, 335–088–903–0, and 335–088– 

904–0, unless they have passed an inspection 

specified in paragraph 3. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of CFM 

International SB No. CFM56–3/3B/3C S/B 

72–1067, dated February 15, 2007. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(n) Replacing the 25 degrees midspan 

shroud fan blade set with a 37 degrees 

midspan shroud fan blade set terminates the 

repetitive inspection requirements specified 

in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(o) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(p) Contact Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: antonio.cancelliere@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7751; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

(q) Contact CFM International, S.A., 

Technical Publication Department, 1 

Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; 

telephone (513) 552–2800; fax (513) 552– 

2816, for a copy of the service information 

referenced in this AD. 

(r) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 

2009–0036, dated February 20, 2009, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

March 19, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7343 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. FDA 1993–N–0259] (formerly 

Docket No. 1993N–0085) 

Beverages: Bottled Water; Reopening 

of the Comment Period 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is reopening until 

June 1, 2010 the comment period for the 

proposed rule, published in the Federal 

Register of August 4, 1993 (58 FR 

41612), amending the quality standard 

for bottled water (currently in 21 CFR 

165.110(b)). In the 1993 proposed rule, 

FDA proposed to revise the bottled 

water quality standard to establish or 

modify the allowable levels for 5 

inorganic chemicals and 18 synthetic 

organic chemicals, and to maintain the 

existing allowable level for the 

inorganic chemical sulfate. In a final 

rule published March 26, 1996 (61 FR 

13258), FDA maintained the existing 

allowable level for sulfate and adopted 

the proposed allowable levels for the 5 

inorganic chemicals and 17 of the 

synthetic organic chemicals, but 

deferred final action on the proposed 

allowable level for the chemical di(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). FDA is 

reopening the comment period on the 

1993 proposed rule to seek further 

comment on finalizing the allowable 

level for DEHP in the bottled water 

quality standard. 

DATES: Submit written or electronic 

comments by June 1, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1