24798 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

The HP compressor stage 1 disc is part of the 

HP compressor stage 1–4 shaft, P/N FK32580. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of 

the HP compressor stage 1 disc, uncontained 

engine failure, and damage to the airplane. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring Parts 

(1) For RB211–Trent 800 series engines 

being monitored by ‘‘Multiple Flight Profile 

Monitoring,’’ remove the HP compressor stage 

1–4 shaft, P/N FK32580, before accumulating 

5,580 standard duty cycles (SDC) since-new 

or within 960 SDC from the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Heavy Flight Profile Parts 

(2) For RB211–Trent 800 series engines 

being monitored by ‘‘Heavy Flight Profile,’’ 

remove the HP compressor stage 1–4 shaft, 

P/N FK32580, before accumulating 5,280 

flight cycles since new or within 860 flight 

cycles from the effective data of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

FAA Differences 

(f) We have found it necessary to not 

incorporate the June 4, 2008 compliance date 

which is in EASA AD 2010–0087, dated May 

5, 2010 (corrected May 6, 2010). We also 

updated the compliance times in the AD 

based on a more recent assessment of the 

unsafe condition. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 

2010–0087, dated May 5, 2010 (corrected 

May 6, 2010), and Rolls-Royce plc Alert 

Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AF825, 

Revision 3, dated August 25, 2009 for related 

information. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, 

Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, 

Derby, England, DE248BJ, telephone: 011– 

44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–1332–245418; 

or e-mail via: http://www.rolls-royce.com/ 

contact/civil_team.jsp, for a copy of this 

service information. 

(i) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: alan.strom@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7143; fax (781) 238–7199, for more 

information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 25, 2011. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10520 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0821; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NE–30–AD; Amendment 39– 

16657; AD 2011–08–07] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc (RR) RB211–Trent 875–17, RB211– 

Trent 877–17, RB211–Trent 884–17, 

RB211–Trent 884B–17, RB211–Trent 

892–17, RB211–Trent 892B–17, and 

RB211–Trent 895–17 Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

In January 2009 a Trent 895 powered 

Boeing 777–200 aircraft experienced release 

of a low pressure (LP) compressor blade 

which failed due to fatigue cracking in the 

root section of the blade. The released blade 

(undercut root standard) had received a part 

life processing to apply a compression layer 

to the blade root (Service Bulletin SB 72– 

D672—Introduction of Laser Shock Peening 

(LSP)) and also a part life upgrade to the 

retention feature lubrication system. 

Investigation has revealed that the 

effectiveness of this upgraded blade root 

lubrication coating system may be reduced 

dependant on the extent of previous running 

with the earlier standard, leading to 

increased blade root stress levels. In the 

specific case of the released blade, a review 

of its in-service modification history has 

shown that it operated for a relatively high 

number of flight cycles prior to the 

compression layer processing and the new 

retention feature lubrication system. A 

review of the Engine Health Monitoring data 

has also identified it operated at high N1 

speeds compared to the Trent 800 fleet 

average N1 speeds. The combination of these 

factors has resulted in increased fatigue life 

usage which is considered to have led to 

crack initiation and propagation prior to 

reaching the blades declared life limit. A 

review of all in-service undercut/LSP 

standard Trent 800 LP compressor blades has 

identified specific blades that carry a similar 

increased susceptibility to cracking. 

This AD is issued to mitigate the risk of 

possible multiple fan blades failure affecting 

those blades identified as described above 

which could lead to high energy non 

contained debris from the engine. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent LP 

compressor blades from failing due to 

blade root cracks, which could lead to 

uncontained engine failure and damage 

to the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 

7, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this AD as of June 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations 

office is located at Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

e-mail: alan.strom@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7143; fax (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on January 14, 2011 (76 FR 

2605). That NPRM proposed to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states that: 

In January 2009 a Trent 895 powered 

Boeing 777–200 aircraft experienced release 

of a low pressure (LP) compressor blade 

which failed due to fatigue cracking in the 

root section of the blade. The released blade 

(undercut root standard) had received a part 

life processing to apply a compression layer 

to the blade root (Service Bulletin SB 72– 

D672—Introduction of Laser Shock Peening 

(LSP)) and also a part life upgrade to the 

retention feature lubrication system. 

Investigation has revealed that the 

effectiveness of this upgraded blade root 

lubrication coating system may be reduced 

dependant on the extent of previous running 

with the earlier standard, leading to 

increased blade root stress levels. In the 

specific case of the released blade, a review 

of its in-service modification history has 

shown that it operated for a relatively high 

number of flight cycles prior to the 

compression layer processing and the new 

retention feature lubrication system. A 

review of the Engine Health Monitoring data 

has also identified it operated at high N1 

speeds compared to the Trent 800 fleet 

average N1 speeds. The combination of these 

factors has resulted in increased fatigue life 

usage which is considered to have led to 

crack initiation and propagation prior to 

reaching the blades declared life limit. A 

review of all in-service undercut/LSP 

standard Trent 800 LP compressor blades has 

identified specific blades that carry a similar 

increased susceptibility to cracking. 
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 24799 

This AD is issued to mitigate the risk of 

possible multiple fan blades failure affecting 

those blades identified as described above 

which could lead to high energy non 

contained debris from the engine. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Ensure Cyclic Requirements 

Are Equivalent to Calendar-Based 

Requirements 

Two commenters, the Boeing 

Company and American Airlines, 

request that we ensure that the cyclic 

requirements in the AD are equivalent 

to the calendar-based requirements in 

the MCAI and Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 

1, dated January 26, 2010. American 

Airlines’ engine serial number (S/N) 

51137 is identified as having an 

allowable inspection threshold of 1,680 

cycles from the effective date of the 

proposed AD. Based on American 

Airlines’ cyclic usage, the FAA AD 

would allow the blades to operate until 

March 1, 2014, while the RR ASB would 

only allow the blades to operate until 

January 1, 2013. The proposed AD 

appears to be less conservative for the 

blades in engine S/N 51137. 

We agree. We moved engine S/N 

51137 from being listed with the 1,680 

cycles threshold, to being listed with a 

1,027 cycles threshold in row 3C of 

Table 1 of the AD. 

Recommendation To Retain 

Compliance Calendar Date Format 

One commenter, RR, recommends 

that the FAA retain the calendar date 

format as specified in the referenced 

ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, 

dated January 26, 2010 for compliance, 

rather than converting to cycles for the 

inspection threshold for the subpopulation of fan sets. At the request of 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board, RR analyzed the modification 

and installation data for each fan set 

using both hours and cycles. For some 

operators, the highest risk value was 

based on hours and for others it was 

cycles. Whichever gave the highest risk 

value, together with the average 

utilization, was then used to determine 

the dates at which the blades need to 

have their initial inspection. Therefore, 

converting to cycles may not be correct 

for some operators. Rolls-Royce states 

that it will monitor N1 speed usage. A 

higher N1 speed usage could result in 

the risk values being affected and result 

in RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, 

being revised and re-issued. Any change 

to that ASB would necessitate changing 

the FAA AD. By retaining the date 

format and the FAA AD referencing that 

SB then any future changes to the dates 

in the Appendices of the SB will not 

affect the AD. The SB is clear and 

simple, making it easy for the operators 

to monitor their affected fan blades. 

Monitoring a number of fan blades using 

cycles would make the monitoring more 

difficult for the operator. 

We do not agree. We determined the 

cycles listed in Table 1 of the AD based 

on projected operator usage, from the 

calendar dates in the RR ASB. The SB 

dates were developed based on the logic 

given in the first justification paragraph 

above. The cyclic requirements in the 

AD are inherently consistent with each 

operator’s risk values. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request for Clarification of 

Incorporation by Reference 

Requirements 

One commenter, Delta Airlines, states 

that the proposed AD requires use of 

Appendix 1 of RR ASB No. RB.211–72– 

AG244 to determine whether blades 

should be rejected after inspection. 

Appendix 1 only applies to blades that 

have been removed from the engine. 

Delta Airlines requests that the AD be 

changed so it is clear that the blades can 

be inspected either in or out of the 

engine, with appropriate rejection 

criteria for each method. 

We agree. Our intent is not to restrict 

the inspections to blades removed from 

the engine. We added Appendix 2 to the 

incorporation by reference, to include 

blades not removed. 

Delta Airlines also requests that we 

change the incorporation-by-reference 

requirement, to state that when reapplying dry film lubricant (DFL) to the 

fan blades after inspection, either 

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 

task 72–31–11–400–801–R00, or RR SB 

No. RB.211–72–D347, may be used. The 

commenter states that the latest 

information from RR SB No. RB.211– 

72–D347 is already in AMM task 72–31– 

11–400–801–R00. 

We partially agree. We agree with 

specifying in the AD, that blades that 

pass inspection need to have DFL 

applied before installing the blades. We 

do not agree that the AMM or RR No. 

RB.211–72–D347 need to be 

incorporated by reference in this AD, as 

this equates to standard maintenance. 

Under paragraph (e)(3), we added a 

paragraph that states, for blades that 

pass inspection, re-apply dry film 

lubricant, and install all blades in their 

original position. 

Request for Previous Credit 

Delta Airlines requests that we give 

previous credit for previous 

accomplishments of inspections using 

the original issue of RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AG244, before the effective 

date of the AD. 

We agree. We changed the AD to add 

previous credit for that ASB. 

Request To Eliminate Reporting 

Requirements 

Delta Airlines requests that we 

eliminate the reporting requirements 

from the AD, which were required by 

default since the proposed AD required 

using all of paragraph 3 of RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, dated 

January 26, 2010, and all of Appendix 

1, of that AD. The commenter states that 

these are administrative tasks that do 

not need to be part of the AD. Each 

operator is required to document 

maintenance and AD compliance per 

the applicable regulations, and each has 

their own approved processes for doing 

so. 

We agree and eliminated the reporting 

requirements by specifying only the 

paragraphs needed to perform the 

inspections in the AD. 

Concern That AD Compliance May Be 

Misinterpreted 

Delta Airlines requests that we revise 

the AD to state that after the effective 

date of this AD, blade serial numbers 

that are listed in RR No. RB.211–72– 

AG244, which have reached or are 

within 100 cycles of the initial 

inspection thresholds of Table 1 of the 

proposed AD, may only be installed as 

replacement blades in other engines if 

they have been successfully inspected 

per paragraph (e)(3) of this AD before 

installation. However, they may be 

removed and reinstalled in the same 

engine without paragraph (e)(3) 

inspections provided they do not exceed 

the initial and repetitive inspection 

intervals of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2). 

Also, Delta Airlines requests that we 

revise the AD to state that blades that 

have been ultrasonically inspected prior 

to the AD effective date, but which have 

not yet reached Table 1 thresholds, 

should be considered not yet ‘‘initially 

inspected,’’ and thus not subject to the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraph (e)(2) until they reach the 

Table 1 inspection thresholds. On the 

same subject, American Airlines 

requests that the AD include a note 

similar to the SB to the same effect as 

the above recommendation. Delta 

Airlines and American Airlines are 

concerned that the AD might be 

interpreted that serviceable spare blades 
24800 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

in stock (or blades being swapped from 

one engine to another) with serial 

numbers listed in RR ASB No. RB.211– 

72–AG244, must have ultrasonic 

inspection (UI) accomplished before 

being installed even if they do not 

require initial inspection for thousands 

of cycles into the future. Delta Airlines 

also states that the existing UI 

requirements in the AD may lead to 

confusion as to whether the paragraph 

(e)(2) repetitive requirements apply to 

blades that have been inspected for 

other reasons prior to the Table 1 

threshold. 

We agree with the comments that the 

AD could be more clear as to when the 

inspections must start, and whether UI 

for other reasons prior to the thresholds 

in Table 1 would trigger the repetitive 

inspection requirements of paragraph 

(e)(2). We do not agree with the wording 

of the proposed change because it is 

simpler to define the phrase, ‘‘affected 

blade.’’ The requirement of paragraph 

(e)(5) of the proposed AD, does not 

require inspections more often than 

every 100 cycles for any affected blade, 

since proposed AD paragraph (e)(5) 

refers to paragraph (e)(2) (repetitive UIs 

required by this AD). We added a 

definition to the AD compliance to state 

for the purpose of this AD, an affected 

blade is a blade listed in Table 1 of this 

AD that has accumulated cycles within 

100 cycles, of the initial inspection 

thresholds in Table 1 of this AD. 

Engine Serial Numbers Are for 

Reference Only 

Delta Airlines and American Airlines 

request that we add a statement to the 

AD, stating that the engine serial 

numbers in Table 1 of the proposed AD 

are for reference only, and that the AD 

requirements apply to the blade serial 

numbers, not the engine serial numbers. 

The Table 1 listing of engine serial 

numbers could imply the engine 

requires initial and repetitive 

inspections even if blades were replaced 

with non-affected blades. 

We agree. We intend for the AD to 

apply to the specific fan blade serial 

numbers listed in RR ASB No. RB.211– 

72–AG244, Revision 1, dated January 

26, 2010. The engine serial numbers are 

listed for convenience only. We changed 

Table 1 to state that engine serial 

numbers are provided for reference 

only. 

Request To Correct Table 1 

American Airlines states that engine 

serial number 51280 appears to be in the 

wrong row of Table 1 of the proposed 

AD. They request that we correct the 

Table by moving the serial number from 

the top of row 3E to the bottom of row 

3D, in that table. 

We partially agree. We reviewed the 

proposed AD, as published in the 

Federal Register, and found it to be 

correct. We reviewed the proposed AD 

version in the FAA Regulatory Library 

(RGL), and found that Table 1 had the 

error you found. We contacted the staff 

that oversees the RGL, and they 

corrected Table 1. 

Request That All Thresholds Be Given 

the Same Index 

Delta Airlines requests that all 

thresholds in Table 1 of the proposed 

AD be the same for a given index. Delta 

Airlines noticed that most fan blade 

serial numbers being used in their 

engines were singled out with a lower 

threshold than the rest of the blades 

listed in corresponding appendices of 

the SB. 

We do not agree. We changed the 

inspection requirements in the proposed 

AD from calendar-based requirements to 

cycle-based requirements. Because the 

intent of the AD is to have the same 

level of safety as the EASA AD, the 

cyclic usage of each operator was taken 

into account when converting from 

calendar to cyclic thresholds. The intent 

is for the number of cycles quoted to 

equate to the calendar times shown in 

the EASA AD. Since operators fly on 

different routes and have different 

procedures, the number of cycles 

accumulated in a given calendar period 

will vary as a consequence. We did not 

change the AD. 

Request To Verify Row Identifiers in 

Table 1 

American Airlines requests that the 

FAA verify that the row identifiers in 

Table 1 of the AD, correspond to the 

Appendix identifiers in RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, dated 

January 26, 2010, to ensure that 

operators properly understand the AD 

requirements. 

We partially agree. We agree with 

ensuring that Table 1 is clearly 

understood, to avoid operators from 

having problems complying with the 

AD. We do not agree with changing the 

AD, because Table 1 of the AD provides 

sufficient clarity in defining the 

compliance time criteria and what the 

appropriate sections of the ASB are, to 

be used. The row identifiers in Table 1 

of the AD do correspond to the 

Appendix identifiers in RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, dated 

January 26, 2010. We did not change the 

AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We determined that these changes will 

not increase the economic burden on 

any operator or increase the scope of the 

AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this AD will affect about 

20 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it will 

take about 18 work-hours per engine to 

perform the inspections in one year’s 

time. The average labor rate is $85 per 

work-hour. We estimate that one LP 

compressor blade per year will need 

replacement, at a cost of about $82,000. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

annual cost of the AD on U.S. operators 

to be $112,600. Our cost estimate is 

exclusive of possible warranty coverage. 

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 AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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 AD: 

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 
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 24801 

3. 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (phone 

(800) 647–5527) is provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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: 

2011–08–07 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 

39–16657. Docket No. FAA–2010–0821; 

Directorate Identifier 2010–NE–30–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective June 7, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

RB211–Trent 875–17, RB211–Trent 877–17, 

RB211–Trent 884–17, RB211–Trent 884B–17, 

RB211–Trent 892–17, RB211–Trent 892B–17, 

and RB211–Trent 895–17 turbofan engines. 

Reason 

(d) This AD results from mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of another 

country to identify and correct an unsafe 

condition on an aviation product. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent low-pressure (LP) 

compressor blades from failing due to blade 

root cracks, which could lead to uncontained 

engine failure and damage to the airplane. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Using the corresponding compliance 

threshold in Table 1 of this AD, perform an 

initial ultrasonic inspection (UI) of the 

affected LP compressor blades identified by 

serial number (S/N) in Appendices 3A 

through 3F of RR Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, 

dated January 26, 2010. 

TABLE 1—INITIAL INSPECTION THRESHOLDS

Appendix Number of RR 

ASB No. RB.211–72– 

AG244, Revision 1, that 

identifies affected LP 

compressor blades by 

S/N 

Initial Inspection Threshold 

(Engine Serial Nos. (ESN) are for reference only) 

3A .................................. 120 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

3B .................................. Blades shown in RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1 as fitted to ESN 51039—802 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESNs 51146, 51177, 51145, and 51149—380 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

3C .................................. Blades shown in RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1 as fitted to ESN 51001 and blade S/N RGG16694— 

1,680 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51145, 51149, 51150 and 51204—796 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51160—1,160 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51137—1,027 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

3D .................................. Blades shown in RR ASB No. ASB RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1 as fitted to ESN 51193 and blade S/N 

RGG20216—1,212 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51200—1,237 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51280—1,551 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

3E .................................. Blades shown in RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1 as fitted to ESN 51004, ‘‘na’’ and blade S/Ns 

RGG12590, RGG14081, and RGG15419—3,433 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51156—1,627 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

3F .................................. Blades shown in RR ASB No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1 as fitted to ESN 51175, 51194, 51201, 51205, and 

51228—2,042 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51264—4,309 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

ESN 51443—2,636 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

Blade S/N RGG15698—2,638 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive UIs of the 

affected LP compressor blades within every 

100 flight cycles. 

(3) Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(2) 

of Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB 

No. RB.211–72–AG244, Revision 1, dated 

January 26, 2010, paragraphs 1 through 3.B. 

of Appendix 1, and paragraphs 1 through 3.C. 

of Appendix 2, of that ASB, to perform the 

UIs. 

(4) Remove blades from service before 

further flight that fail the inspection criteria 

in Appendix 1 of RR ASB No. RB.211–72– 

AG244, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2010. 

(5) For blades that pass inspection, reapply dry film lubricant, and install all 

blades in their original position. 

(6) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install any affected LP compressor blade 

unless it has passed the initial and repetitive 

UIs required by this AD. 

Previous Credit 

(f) An initial UI performed before the 

effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AG244, dated August 7, 2009, 

satisfies the initial UI requirements of this 

AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

(g) This AD differs from European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2010–0097, dated 

May 26, 2010. The EASA AD uses calendar 
24802 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 71 FR 16424. Many of the changes are found in 

20 CFR part 405. 

2 72 FR 51173. 

3 73 FR 2411 (Jan. 15, 2008), corrected at 73 FR 

10381 (Feb. 27, 2008). 

4 73 FR at 2412. 

5 74 FR 63688. 

dates for initial inspection thresholds. This 

AD uses flight cycles. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(h) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to EASA AD 2010–0097, dated 

May 26, 2010, for related information. 

(j) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: alan.strom@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7143; fax (781) 238–7199. 

Definition 

(k) For the purpose of this AD, an affected 

blade is a blade listed in Table 1 of this AD 

that has accumulated cycles within 100 

cycles, of the initial inspection thresholds in 

Table 1 of this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Rolls-Royce plc Alert 

Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AG244, 

Revision 1, dated January 26, 2010, 

Appendix 1, Appendix 2, and Appendices 

3A through 3F of that ASB, to do the actions 

required by this AD. 

(1) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 

31, DERBY, DE24 8BJ, UK; telephone 44 1332 

242424; fax 44 1332 249936; e-mail: 

tech.help@rolls-royce.com. 

(2) You may review copies at the FAA, 

New England Region, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 1, 2011. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10521 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404, 405, 416, and 422 

[Docket No. SSA–2008–0015] 

RIN 0960–AG80 

Eliminating the Decision Review Board 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: We are eliminating the 

Decision Review Board (DRB) portions 

of part 405 of our rules, which we 

currently use as the final step in our 

administrative review process for 

adjudicating initial disability claims in 

our Boston region. As of the effective 

date of this regulation, we will replace 

the DRB step with review by the 

Appeals Council. The Appeals Council 

will follow most of the rules in parts 

404 and 416 that we use in the rest of 

the country to adjudicate disability 

claims at the Appeals Council level, 

with some differences needed to 

accommodate the rules that govern 

administrative law judge (ALJ) hearings 

in the Boston region. We will also 

authorize attorney advisors in the 

Boston region to conduct certain 

prehearing proceedings and make fully 

favorable decisions as they do in the rest 

of the country. We are making these 

changes to improve service to claimants 

and to increase consistency in our 

program rules. 

DATES: These final rules are effective 

June 13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Kryglik, Social Security Administration, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 965–3735 for 

information about these rules. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, 

Social Security Online, at http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 31, 2006, we published 

final rules in the Federal Register that 

implemented a number of changes in 

our process for handling initial 

disability claims.1 We referred to those 

regulations collectively as the Disability 

Service Improvement process (DSI). We 

intended DSI to improve the way we 

handle initial disability claims. DSI 

added rules that implemented a Quick 

Disability Determination (QDD) process 

at the initial level of our administrative 

review process. It also replaced the 

reconsideration step of the 

administrative review process with 

review by a Federal Reviewing Official 

(FedRO), established the Office of 

Medical and Vocational Expertise 

(OMVE), and made changes to some of 

the procedures in our ALJ hearing-level 

process. DSI also eliminated review by 

the Appeals Council, the final step in 

our administrative review process. We 

replaced the Appeals Council with the 

DRB, which reviewed certain ALJ 

decisions before those decisions became 

final. On August 1, 2006, we 

implemented the DSI rules in our 

Boston region, which consists of the 

States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. At that time, we 

planned to implement the DSI rules in 

our remaining regions over a period of 

several years. 

We have continually monitored the 

DSI process and made appropriate 

changes when necessary. For example, 

we published final rules on September 

6, 2007, that implemented the QDD 

process nationally.2 In other final rules, 

we suspended new claims processing 

through the Office of the Federal 

Reviewing Official (OFedRO) and the 

OMVE under subpart C of part 405 on 

March 23, 2008, so that we could 

reallocate those resources to reduce the 

backlog at the ALJ hearing level.3 In 

November 2008, the OFedRO issued a 

decision on the last of the claims it had 

accepted for review.4 Thus, in 

accordance with our March 2008 final 

rules, the States in the Boston region 

returned to some of the processes they 

followed before August 2006, including 

using either the process for 

reconsideration of an initial 

determination in 20 CFR 404.907 and 

416.1407 or the testing procedures in 20 

CFR 404.906 and 416.1406. 

On December 4, 2009, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), Reestablishing Uniform 

National Disability Adjudication 

Provisions, which proposed to eliminate 

DSI and return the Boston region to the 

rules in parts 404 and 416 that we use 

to adjudicate disability claims in the 

rest of the country.5 We are adopting 

some of our proposed revisions in these 

final rules. 

Explanation of Changes 

In these final rules, we are eliminating 

the DRB and restoring the Boston region 

to most of the same rules and 

procedures at the Appeals Council level 

under parts 404 and 416 that we 

currently follow in the rest of the 

country. We will continue to use our 

rules about hearings before ALJs under 

part 405 in the Boston region, including 

our rules that provide 75-day notice of 

a hearing and require a claimant to 

submit all evidence 5 days prior to his 

or her hearing unless he or she shows 

good cause. We are eliminating the 

existing rules that require claimants to 

ask an ALJ to vacate the ALJ’s dismissal 

of a hearing request. Instead, under our 

new rules, claimants may appeal an 

ALJ’s dismissal of a hearing request