13794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials 

and coatings used in the manufacturing of 

equipment and objects destined for contact with 

foodstuffs. 

5The least squares function is an analytical tool 

that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared 

residual differences between the actual historical 

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

curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting 

curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the 

data provided. 

6This selection is consistent with the previous 

annual comparisons. See DOE’s 2008 forecast 

spreadsheet models of the lamp types for greater 

detail on the estimates. 

shards from being dispersed if a lamp’s 

glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant 

lamps incorporate a coating compliant 

with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,4

‘‘Food Equipment Materials,’’ and are 

labeled and marketed as shatterresistant, shatter-proof, or shatterprotected. Some types of the coatings 

can also protect the lamp from breakage 

in applications subject to heat and 

thermal shock that may occur from 

water, sleet, snow, soldering, or 

welding. 

III. Comparison Methodology 

In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed 

each of the five sets of shipment data 

that was collected in consultation with 

NEMA and applied two curve fits to 

generate unit sales estimates for the five 

lamp types after calendar year 2006. 

One curve fit applied a linear regression 

to the historical data and extended that 

line into the future. The other curve fit 

applied an exponential growth function 

to the shipment data and projected unit 

sales into the future. For this 

calculation, linear regression treats the 

year as a dependent variable and 

shipments as the independent variable. 

The linear regression curve fit is 

modeled by minimizing the differences 

among the data points and the best 

curve-fit linear line using the least 

squares function.5 The exponential 

curve fit is also a regression function 

and uses the same least squares function 

to find the best fit. For some data sets, 

an exponential curve provides a better 

characterization of the historical data, 

and, therefore, a better projection of the 

future data. 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601– 

3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE found that the 

linear regression and exponential 

growth curve fits produced nearly the 

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

difference between the two forecasted 

values was less than 1 or 2 percent). 

However, for rough service and 

vibration service lamps, the linear 

regression curve fit projected lamp unit 

sales would decline to zero for both 

lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the 

exponential growth curve fit projected a 

more gradual decline in unit sales, such 

that lamps would still be sold beyond 

2018, and it was, therefore, considered 

the more realistic forecast. While DOE 

was satisfied that either the linear 

regression or exponential growth 

spreadsheet model generated a 

reasonable benchmark unit sales 

estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE selected the 

exponential growth curve fit for these 

lamp types for consistency with the 

selection made for rough service and 

vibration service lamps.6 DOE examines 

the benchmark unit sales estimates and 

actual sales for each of the five lamp 

types in the following section and also 

makes the comparisons available in a 

spreadsheet online: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/63. 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

For rough service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 5,224,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 7,267,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding exceeds the estimate by 

only 39.1 percent, DOE will continue to 

track rough service lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

For vibration service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 2,729,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 5,220,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding exceeds the estimate by 

only 91.3 percent, DOE will continue to 

track vibration service lamp sales data 

and will not initiate regulatory action 

for this lamp type at this time. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 49,107,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 35,340,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is only 72.0 percent of 

the estimate, DOE will continue to track 

3-way incandescent lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

For 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 34,110,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 5,232,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is 15.3 percent of the 

estimate, DOE will continue to track 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamp sales data and will 

not initiate regulatory action for this 

lamp type at this time. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

For shatter-resistant lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 1,671,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 1,042,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is only 62.4 percent of 

the estimate, DOE will continue to track 

shatter-resistant lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

V. Conclusion 

None of the shipments for rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps, 

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

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed 

the statutory threshold for a standard. 

DOE will continue to monitor these five 

currently exempted lamp types and will 

assess 2015 sales by March 31, 2016, in 

order to determine whether an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking is 

required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(4)(D) through (H). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05947 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63, 

70, 71, and 72 

[Docket Nos. PRM–50–107; NRC–2013– 

0077] 

Requirement To Submit Complete and 

Accurate Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13795 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; 

consideration in the rulemaking 

process. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) will consider in the 

rulemaking process the issues raised in 

a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM– 

50–107, submitted by James Lieberman 

(the petitioner). The petitioner 

requested that the NRC amend its 

regulations to require that all persons 

seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC 

with complete and accurate 

information. Current NRC regulations 

pertaining to completeness and 

accuracy of information apply only to 

NRC licensees and license applicants. 

The NRC has determined that the issues 

raised in the PRM have merit and are 

appropriate for consideration in the 

rulemaking process. 

DATES: The docket for the petition for 

rulemaking, PRM–50–107, is closed on 

March 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2013–0077 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this petition. You can 

obtain publicly-available documents 

related to this petition by using any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2013–0077. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher, telephone: 301–415—3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• The NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this document 

(if that document is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. In addition, 

for the convenience of the reader, the 

ADAMS accession numbers are 

provided in a table in Section V of this 

document, Availability of Documents. 

• The NRC’s PDR: You may examine 

and purchase copies of public 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–2328; email: 

Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background. 

II. Requirement to Submit Complete and 

Accurate Information. 

III. Analysis of Public Comments. 

IV. Determination of Petition. 

V. Availability of Documents. 

I. Background 

On April 15, 2013, the NRC received 

a PRM (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to 

revise its regulations relating to nuclear 

reactors at §§ 50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6 

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its 

‘‘regulatory framework to make it a legal 

obligation for those non-licensees who 

seek NRC regulatory approvals be held 

to the same legal standards for the 

submittal of complete and accurate 

information as would a licensee or an 

applicant for a license.’’ James 

Lieberman, a regulatory and nuclear 

safety consultant, submitted the petition 

which was filed on April 15, 2013, and 

later amended on September 16, 2013. 

The petitioner originally requested that 

the NRC amend its regulations in 10 

CFR parts 50 and 52, to require all 

persons who seek NRC approvals to 

provide the NRC with complete and 

accurate information. 

The NRC assigned the petition Docket 

Number PRM–50–107 and published a 

notice of receipt of the petition in the 

Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 

(78 FR 34604). The NRC requested 

public comment on the petition and 

received two comments, both 

supporting the petition. On September 

16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13113A443), the petitioner amended 

the rulemaking petition to expand its 

scope to include not only 10 CFR parts 

50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory 

framework for radioactive materials, 

waste disposal, transportation, and 

spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 

30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The 

NRC published a notice regarding the 

amended petition (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13261A190) in the Federal 

Register requesting comment (79 FR 

3328; January 21, 2014). One additional 

comment in support of the amended 

petition was received. 

The petitioner asserts that nonlicensees (including vendors and other 

contractors) used by NRC-regulated 

entities to meet regulatory requirements 

should be subject to the same 

requirements for complete and accurate 

submissions as NRC licensees and 

license applicants. When the 

Commission promulgated the 1987 

‘‘Completeness and Accuracy of 

Information’’ rule (52 FR 49362; 

December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule), 

neither the rule language nor the 

Statement of Considerations (SOC) 

discussed non-licensees submitting 

information to the NRC for regulatory 

approvals. The 1987 rule included 

nearly identical ‘‘Completeness and 

Accuracy of Information’’ requirements 

in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 

71, and 72. When the Commission 

added 10 CFR parts 52 and 63 to its 

regulations, it added ‘‘Completeness and 

Accuracy of Information’’ requirements 

to these parts as well (72 FR 49521, 

August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732, 

November 2, 2001; respectively). The 

petitioner asserts that the intent of this 

petition is to close the gap that exists in 

NRC requirements between licensees/

applicants and non-licensees regarding 

the submittal of complete and accurate 

information for NRC approval. 

The NRC assigned the petition Docket 

Number PRM–50–107 and published a 

notice of receipt of the petition in the 

Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 

(78 FR 34604). The NRC requested 

public comment on the petition and 

received two comments, both 

supporting the petition. On September 

16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13113A443), the petitioner amended 

the rulemaking petition to expand its 

request to include not only 10 CFR parts 

50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory 

framework for radioactive materials, 

waste disposal, transportation, and 

spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 

30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the 

amended petition, the petitioner also 

requested that the ‘‘scope’’ section for 

each of the parts be revised to add 

language to highlight that any person 

seeking or obtaining an NRC approval 

for a regulated activity would be subject 

to enforcement action for violation of 

the completeness and accuracy 

provision of that part. The applicable 

sections are §§ 30.1, 40.2, 50.1, 52.0, 

60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2. 

II. Requirement To Submit Complete 

and Accurate Information 

The NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 30.9, 

40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10, 61.9a, 63.10, 

70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1) 

The longstanding policy that license 

applicants and licensees provide the 

Commission information that is 

complete and accurate in all material 

respects and maintain such information 

as required; and (2) the requirement that 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13796 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

license applicants and licensees notify 

the NRC of any information they 

identify as having, for the regulated 

activity, a significant implication for the 

public health and safety or common 

defense and security. 

The 1987 rule re-emphasized the 

NRC’s need to receive complete and 

accurate information and timely 

notification of safety significant 

information from its licensees and 

license applicants if the NRC is to fulfill 

its statutory responsibilities under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated 

that ‘‘the accuracy and forthrightness in 

communications to the NRC by 

licensees and applicants for licenses are 

essential if the NRC is to fulfill its 

responsibilities to ensure that utilization 

of radioactive material and the 

operation of nuclear facilities are 

consistent with the health and safety of 

the public and the common defense and 

security.’’ The SOC relied on the general 

authority provision in AEA Section 

161b. that permits the NRC to establish 

by rule, regulation, or order, such 

standards and instructions to govern the 

possession and use of special nuclear 

material, source material, and byproduct 

material. The SOC also specifically 

mentioned the importance of accurate 

information in AEA Section 186, which 

authorizes the NRC to revoke any 

license for material false statement in an 

application or statement of fact required 

under AEA Section 182. 

However, similar concerns also are 

raised when non-licensees seek the 

NRC’s approval in other situations. For 

example, a non-licensee may submit a 

description of its Quality Assurance 

(QA) program to the NRC for approval 

in support of a Certificate of Compliance 

(CoC) for transportation and storage 

casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71 

and part 72 set forth requirements for 

QA programs in subparts H and G, 

respectively. Non-licensees who intend 

to apply for a CoC establish, maintain, 

and execute programs satisfying the QA 

requirements for the control of qualityaffecting activities such as design, 

procurement, special processes, 

inspection, and testing, among other 

activities. Implementing an effective QA 

program during transportation or storage 

cask design and testing pre-application 

phases provides adequate confidence 

that the systems or components will 

perform satisfactorily in service. 

On more than one occasion the NRC 

has received from a non-licensee a 

description of a QA program for NRC 

approval in accordance with 10 CFR 

parts 71 and 72 requirements. After 

reviewing this information, the NRC 

staff approved the QA program, as 

documented. However, a subsequent onsite inspection of that NRC-approved 

QA program resulted in a finding of 

inadequate implementation of certain 

quality-related activities. Had this QA 

program implementation deficiency 

gone unidentified and uncorrected, it 

could have resulted in design issues or 

reduced confidence that systems or 

components would perform 

satisfactorily in service. Under current 

regulations, the NRC can only take an 

enforcement action against the applicant 

if the cause of a QA program deficiency 

is attributable to an applicant providing 

incomplete or inaccurate information. 

The NRC is unable to take enforcement 

action against the non-licensee for not 

providing complete and accurate 

information that was submitted for 

NRC’s approval; the NRC is limited to 

issuing an administrative action, such as 

a notice of nonconformance. 

A topical report is another example of 

one type of information submitted to the 

NRC by non-licensees for regulatory 

approval. Once reviewed and approved, 

the NRC endorses the use of the topical 

report, and licensees implement the 

report accordingly. The petitioner cited 

reactor topical reports as an example of 

a single safety evaluation report, once 

approved by the NRC, that may be 

adopted by many licensees, and 

therefore greatly magnify the impact of 

any error beyond the non-licensee 

applicant for the topical report itself. 

The petition states that non-licensees 

who submit information to the NRC for 

approval should be held accountable for 

providing complete and accurate 

information. The petitioner’s proposed 

rule change would provide the NRC 

staff with additional enforcement tools 

to encourage non-licensees to submit 

complete and accurate information to 

the NRC. 

III. Analysis of Public Comments 

The NRC received a total of three 

comment submissions on the petition 

and amended petition from two private 

citizens. The NRC received two public 

comments in response to the June 10, 

2013, Federal Register notice. Both 

were in support of the petition, one 

suggested the inclusion of additional 

licensees in the petition. In response to 

the January 21, 2014, Federal Register 

notice, the NRC received a second 

comment from a previous commenter 

reiterating his support on the amended 

petition. 

Comment No. 1 

Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman 

International 

Comment: The commenter asserted 

that the NRC should consider for 

rulemaking Mr. Lieberman’s petition to 

require vendors and suppliers to 

provide complete and accurate 

information. The commenter also stated 

that the NRC should consider expanding 

the original petition’s request to include 

other parts of the regulations that have 

the same completeness and accuracy 

provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 

61, 70, 71, and 72. The commenter 

highlighted that it is important to have 

complete and accurate information in 

submittals by non-licensees who seek 

the following: (1) Exemption from NRC 

regulations; and (2) NRC approval that 

their activities do not need a license. 

The commenter pointed out that 

currently there is no legal obligation for 

a vendor to provide complete and 

accurate information either in the 

application for a topical report or in 

response to NRC questions on the 

topical report. The commenter noted 

that this oversight has been brought to 

light during litigation. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

this comment, and intends to consider 

this issue in the rulemaking process. In 

addition, the petitioner amended the 

petition to expand the request of 

proposed changes in the regulations. 

Comment No. 2 

Commenter: Charles Haughney 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the NRC should consider Mr. 

Lieberman’s petition for rulemaking. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the comment and intends to consider 

this PRM in the rulemaking process. 

Comment No. 3 

Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman 

International 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the NRC should consider for rulemaking 

the revised petition that expands the 

original petition request. 

NRC Response: The NRC agrees with 

the comment and intends to consider 

the PRM in the rulemaking process. 

IV. Determination of Petition 

Non-licensee applicants for NRC 

regulatory approvals (e.g. topical report, 

an exemption from licensing, or 

submission of a QA program) currently 

are not under the same regulatory 

obligation as licensees or license 

applicants to provide complete and 

accurate information. Non-licensees that 

have received an NRC approval are also 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13797 

not under the same regulatory obligation 

as licensees to notify the NRC of any 

information that may have a significant 

implication for public health and safety 

or the common defense and security. As 

a result, the lack of similar requirements 

for non-licensees could adversely affect 

public health and safety or the common 

defense and security. As with licensees 

and license applicants, the NRC staff 

relies on the information submitted by 

non-licensees as the primary basis for 

approving their requests; it is 

fundamental for good regulation that all 

applicants for NRC approvals meet the 

same requirement to submit complete 

and accurate information. It is also 

important that both licensees and nonlicensees operating under an NRC 

approval be required to notify the NRC 

of information they have identified as 

having a significant implication for the 

public health and safety or common 

defense and security. In the case of 

reactor topical reports, as cited by the 

petitioner, a single safety evaluation 

report may be adopted by many 

licensees once it has been approved by 

the NRC, greatly magnifying the impact 

of any errors beyond the non-licensee 

applicant for the topical report itself. 

The NRC agrees with the petitioner 

that non-licensee applicants for NRC 

approvals in all subject areas (e.g. 

reactors, materials, transportation, and 

waste) should be required to submit 

complete and accurate information. 

Imposing the same requirement for 

completeness and accuracy of 

information to all non-licensee 

applicants for NRC approvals ensures a 

consistent and comprehensive set of 

regulatory expectations. 

Although not mentioned in the 

petition or the amended petition, the 

NRC staff identified other portions of 

the regulations that contain similar 

requirements for ‘‘Completeness and 

Accuracy of Information.’’ As a result, 

the NRC also considered the 

applicability of the issue to 10 CFR parts 

54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation. 

For these reasons, the NRC will 

consider the issues raised in the petition 

in the rulemaking process. 

V. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

For information on accessing ADAMS, 

see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

Date Document 

ADAMS 

Accession number/ 

Federal Register 

citation 

April 15, 2013 ............................................................. Original Petition (PRM–50–107) ..................................................... ML13113A443 

June 10, 2013 ............................................................. Original FRN ................................................................................... 78 FR 34604 

September 16, 2013 ................................................... Amended Petition ........................................................................... ML13261A190 

January 21, 2014 ........................................................ Amended FRN ................................................................................ 79 FR 3328 

August 29, 2013 ......................................................... Comment 1: Hugh Thompson ........................................................ ML13241A222 

August 26, 2013 ......................................................... Comment 2: Charles Haughney ..................................................... ML13246A383 

April 10, 2014 ............................................................. Comment 3: Hugh Thompson ........................................................ ML14100A198 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of February, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark A. Satorius, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06107 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0165; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NE–02–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

General Electric Company (GE) GEnx 

turbofan engine models. This proposed 

AD was prompted by reports of GEnx1B and GEnx-2B engines experiencing 

power loss in ice crystal icing (ICI) 

conditions. This proposed AD would 

preclude the use of full authority digital 

engine control (FADEC) software, 

version B175 or earlier, in GEnx-1B 

engines, and the use of FADEC software, 

version C065 or earlier, in GEnx-2B 

engines. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent engine failure, loss of thrust 

control, and damage to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 18, 2015. 

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 General 

Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 

285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 

45215; phone: 513–552–3272; email: 

geae.aoc@ge.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238– 

7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

0165; 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: 

Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS