This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

61114 

Vol. 75, No. 191 

Monday, October 4, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1165; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NE–38–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc RB211–Trent 800 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This supplemental NPRM 

revises an earlier proposed 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

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: 

During manufacture of high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1 discs, a small number of 

parts have been rejected due to a machining 

defect that was found during inspection. 

Analysis of the possibility of less severe 

examples having been undetected and passed 

into service has concluded that action is 

required to reduce the risk of failure. It was 

therefore necessary to reduce the life limit. 

The HP compressor stage 1 disc is part 

of the HP compressor stage 1–4 shaft, 

part number (P/N) FK32580. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent failure of 

the HP compressor stage 1 disc, 

uncontained engine failure, and damage 

to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 18, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• 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. 

Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, 

Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 

011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44– 

1332–245418 for the service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

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 (phone (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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 

238–7199. 

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–2008–1165; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NE–38–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 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 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

Discussion 

This supplemental NPRM revises an 

earlier proposed AD, for Rolls-Royce plc 

RB211–Trent 800 series turbofan 

engines. That proposed AD would have 

required removing HP compressor stage 

1–4 shafts, P/N FK32580, from service at 

reduced life limits based on part 

assessment using either ‘‘Multiple Flight 

Profile Monitoring’’, or ‘‘Heavy Flight 

Profile’’ calculations. That proposed AD 

resulted from MCAI issued by an 

aviation authority of another country. 

This supplemental NPRM revises the 

proposed AD to correct certain life 

limits for the Heavy Flight Profile Parts. 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM to prevent failure of the HP 

compressor stage 1 disc, uncontained 

engine failure, and damage to the 

airplane. The European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA), which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Community, has issued MCAI 

AD 2010–0087, date May 5, 2010 

(corrected, May 6, 2010), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

During manufacture of high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1 discs, a small number of 

parts have been rejected due to a machining 

defect that was found during inspection. 

Analysis of the possibility of less severe 

examples having been undetected and passed 

into service has concluded that action is 

required to reduce the risk of failure. It is 

therefore necessary to reduce the life limit. 

Since we issued the original proposed 

AD on February 10, 2009 (74 FR 7563, 

February 18, 2009): 

• EASA issued AD 2010–0087, dated 

May 5, 2010, and AD 2010–0087 

(corrected May 6, 2010) to correct 

certain life limits for the Heavy Flight 

Profile Parts. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61115 

• EASA issued AD 2010–0087, dated 

May 5, 2010 (corrected May 6, 2010), 

which retains certain requirements of 

superseded EASA AD 2008–0099, and 

imposes more restrictive life limits in 

the Heavy Flight Profile Parts. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of the original proposed 

AD. We considered the comments 

received. 

NPRM Would Allow a Part To Go 

Beyond the Current Time Limits 

Manual (TLM) Limit 

One commenter, Delta Airlines 

through the Airline Transport 

Association (ATA), states that the 

NPRM would require a 5,280 cycle life 

limit established in the long term for 

shafts that are used in the ‘‘Heavy Flight 

Profile’’. In the draw down period from 

the initial effective date, the NPRM 

would allow a shaft in the ‘‘Heavy Flight 

Profile’’ category to remain in service for 

up to 7,480 flight cycles in the worst 

case scenario. However, the existing 

TLM Section 05–10–01–800–802, 

Subtask 05–10–01–860–169 (dated 

March 15, 2008) states that the current 

declared life limit for HP compressor 

stage 1–4 shaft, P/N FK32580, is only 

6,850 flight cycles. The NPRM would 

allow a part to go beyond the current 

TLM limit in the interim draw down 

period which seems to contradict the 

intent of the NPRM. 

We agree. We changed the 

supplemental NPRM to use the correct 

life limit reduction. 

Allow Later Approved Revisions of the 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) as 

Acceptable for Compliance 

One commenter, American Airlines 

through the ATA, states that subsequent 

to the writing of the NPRM, Rolls-Royce 

plc published Revision 2 of ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AF825. The commenter 

requests that the AD should include 

language that allows later approved 

revisions of the ASB as acceptable for 

compliance. 

We partially agree. We agree that our 

ADs should be as current and accurate 

as possible. We changed the AD to 

include the reference to ASB Revision 3 

in the related information paragraph. 

We disagree that the NPRM, or this 

supplemental NPRM, require the use of 

the ASB for compliance, or that we 

should permit an unknown future 

revision be used for compliance. Since 

we do not know the content of later 

documents like ASBs, we do not issue 

a regulation that mandates compliance 

with the unknown. We did not change 

the proposed AD to permit compliance 

to unknown future revisions. 

Request To Change the Base-Lined 

Compliance Time in the AD 

One commenter, Rolls-Royce plc, 

states that their SB compliance time is 

base-lined from May 1, 2008. The FAA 

NPRM is understood to permit the same 

cyclic draw down as the SB. However, 

the baseline date for the applicable draw 

down would be the issue date of the 

FAA AD. Rolls-Royce plc requests that 

we change the base-lined compliance 

time in the proposed AD to the 

compliance base line in the RR SB. 

We do not agree. We cannot pre-date 

the compliance times in the proposed 

AD. We did not change the AD. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI 

We have reviewed the MCAI and, in 

general, agree with its substance. But 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 updated the compliance 

times in the proposed AD based on a 

more recent assessment of the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of the United 

Kingdom, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the United 

Kingdom, they have notified us of the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI 

and service information referenced 

above. We are proposing this AD 

because we evaluated all information 

provided by EASA and determined the 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of the 

same type design. This proposed AD 

requires removing HP compressor stage 

1–4 shafts, P/N FK32580, from service at 

reduced life limits based on part 

assessment using either ‘‘Multiple Flight 

Profile Monitoring’’, or ‘‘Heavy Flight 

Profile’’ calculations. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 78 products of U.S. registry. 

Required parts would cost about 

$15,095 per product. We estimate that 

no additional labor costs would be 

incurred to perform the proposed 

actions, as we anticipate that the 

removal from service of the HP 

compressor stage 1–4 shafts will occur 

while the engine is inducted into the 

shop for routine maintenance. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$1,177,410. 

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 

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 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, 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: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

61116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2008– 

1165; Directorate Identifier 2008–NE– 

38–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 18, 2010. 

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

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

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

–Trent 884–17, –Trent 884B–17, –Trent 892– 

17, –Trent 892B–17, and –Trent 895–17 

turbofan engines, with high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1–4 shafts, part number 

(P/N) FK32580, installed. These engines are 

installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 

series airplanes. 

Reason 

(d) European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2010–0087, dated May 5, 2010 

(corrected May 6, 2010) states the unsafe 

condition is as follows: 

During manufacture of high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1 discs, a small number of 

parts have been rejected due to a machining 

defect that was found during inspection. 

Analysis of the possibility of less severe 

examples having been undetected and passed 

into service has concluded that action is 

required to reduce the risk of failure. It was 

therefore necessary to reduce the life limit. 

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 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 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, P.O. 

Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 

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

245418, for a copy of this service 

information. 

(i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

September 27, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24745 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2010–3] 

Refunds Under the Cable Statutory 

License 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office seeks comment on 

whether a cable operator may receive 

refunds in situations where it has failed 

to pay for the carriage of distant signals 

on a system–wide basis under the 

Copyright Act, before it was amended to 

allow a cable system to calculate its 

royalty fees on a community–by– 

community basis. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 

Counsel of the Copyright Office no later 

than November 3, 2010. Reply 

comments must be received in the 

Office of the General Counsel of the 

Copyright Office no later than 

November 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a 

private party, an original and five copies 

of a comment or reply comment should 

be brought to the Library of Congress, 

U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

E.D.T. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. 

If delivered by a commercial courier, an 

original and five copies of a comment or 

reply comment must be delivered to the 

Congressional Courier Acceptance Site 

(‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets, 

NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, 

LM 403, James Madison Building, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will 

not accept delivery by means of 

overnight delivery services such as 

Federal Express, United Parcel Service 

or DHL. If sent by mail (including 

overnight delivery using U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail), an original and 

five copies of a comment or reply 

comment should be addressed to U.S. 

Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, 

P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and 

Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General 

Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 

70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202) 707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

111 of the Copyright Act (‘‘Act’’), title 17 

of the United States Code (‘‘Section 

111’’), provides cable operators with a 

statutory license to retransmit to the 

public a performance or display of a 

work embodied in a primary 

transmission made by a television 

station licensed by the Federal 

Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’). 

Cable systems that retransmit broadcast 

signals in accordance with the 

provisions governing the statutory 

license set forth in Section 111 are 

required to pay royalty fees to the 

Copyright Office (‘‘Office’’). Payments 

made under the cable statutory license 

are remitted semi–annually to the Office 

which invests the royalties in United 

States Treasury securities pending 

distribution of these funds to those 

copyright owners who are entitled to 

receive a share of the fees. Section 111 

was recently amended by the Satellite 

Television Extension and Localism Act 

of 2010 (‘‘STELA’’), Pub. L. No. 111–175, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS