42720 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4This requirement is also found in 10 CFR 

430.32(p) and section 4.11.1 of ASME A112.18.1– 

2011. 

amend, among other items, the test 

procedures for showerheads by 

incorporating by reference, with the 

exception of certain provisions 

regarding rounding of measured values, 

ASME Standard A112.18.1–2011. 77 FR 

31742, 31744. DOE requested comments 

and information on prospective 

methods for verifying compliance with 

the requirement in section 42 U.S.C. 

6295(j)(1) of EPCA that a showerhead 

must be manufactured such that a 

pushing or pulling force of 8 lbf or more 

is required to remove the insert.4 DOE 

also requested comments and 

information on showerhead designs that 

may complicate verification of the force 

requirement or, alternatively, make 

verification unnecessary. 77 FR at 

31746–31748. 

Several comments submitted in 

response to the NOPR recommended 

that DOE not adopt a standardized test 

method (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT– 

TP–0061, Moen, No. 4 at p. 2; PMI, No. 

8 at p. 2; Kohler, No. 9 at p. 3; Kohler, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11 at p. 

47; ICC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

11 at pp. 48–49; Sloan Valve, No. 12 at 

p. 2); on the other hand, some 

comments suggested that such a test 

would be valuable (NRDC/ASAP, No. 14 

at p. 5). DOE did not receive any 

comments indicating that a 

standardized method currently exists, 

however. DOE subsequently conducted 

testing on a selection of showerhead 

models to evaluate flow insert designs 

and developed a pull-force verification 

test. In an April 8, 2013 supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(SNOPR), DOE proposed to adopt this 

test method, which would not be 

required for certifying compliance with 

the DOE standards at 10 CFR 430.32(p), 

but rather, would only be used by DOE 

for verification or enforcement testing. 

78 FR at 20835–20837. 

In response to the SNOPR, DOE 

received several comments opposing 

adoption of a standardized test, 

generally indicating that the proposed 

pull-style test represented a duplication 

of the requirements in the ASME 

Standard A112.18.1 test method or that 

it would conflict with other established 

industry test methods (NSF, No. 22 at p. 

2, PMI, No. 23 at p. 3, Kohler, No. 27 

at p. 2, Chicago Faucet, No. 28 at p. 2, 

and Moen, No. 30 at p. 2). However, 

DOE notes that A112.18.1 states only 

that the flow-restricting insert in a 

showerhead must be mechanically 

retained at the point of manufacture 

such that a pulling or pushing force of 

8 lbf or more is required to remove the 

insert, but does not specify a method for 

verifying that this requirement has been 

met for a given model. DOE did not 

receive any comments describing a test 

method currently in use by 

manufacturers, test laboratories, or 

others for verifying compliance with 

this requirement. 

To ensure that all aspects of DOE’s 

proposal for a standardized method of 

verifying compliance with the 

requirements for the flow-restricting 

insert have been considered and to 

consider whether DOE’s proposed 

method should be adopted in the 

absence of an industry test method, DOE 

has scheduled a public meeting to 

receive additional information, 

comments, and proposals from 

manufacturers, testing organizations, 

and other interested stakeholders. DOE 

encourages stakeholders to bring 

examples of products subject to these 

requirements that may aid in 

discussions of prospective test 

methodologies or that illustrate points 

raised in comments. DOE does not 

intend to discuss any other aspect of the 

plumbing products test procedure 

proposals as part of this meeting. 

DOE will conduct the public meeting 

in an informal, facilitated, conference 

style. There shall be no discussion of 

proprietary information, costs or prices, 

market shares, or other commercial 

matters regulated by U.S. antitrust laws. 

A court reporter will record the minutes 

of the meeting, after which a transcript 

will be available for purchase from the 

court reporter and placed on the DOE 

Web site. 

Anyone who wishes to participate in 

the public meeting, receive meeting 

materials, or be added to the DOE 

mailing list to receive future notices and 

information about showerheads should 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17157 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0546; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–050–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 727 

airplanes. This proposed AD is intended 

to complete certain mandated programs 

intended to support the airplane 

reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of 

the engineering data that support the 

established structural maintenance 

program. For certain airplanes, this 

proposed AD would require 

modification of the web of the 

horizontal stabilizer center section rear 

spar. For the other airplanes, this 

proposed AD would require an 

inspection for cracks in the web, and 

repair or modification as applicable. We 

are proposing this AD to prevent 

cracking at the upper fastener holes in 

the riveted web in the horizontal 

stabilizer center section rear spar, which 

could result in failure of the spar forging 

and lead to horizontal stabilizer 

separation and loss of control of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42721 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, California 

90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5239; fax: 

562–627–5210; email: 

chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0546; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–050–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

As described in FAA Advisory 

Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/ 

documentLibrary/media/ 

Advisory_Circular/120–104.pdf), several 

programs have been developed to 

support initiatives that will ensure the 

continued airworthiness of aging 

airplane structure. The last element of 

those initiatives is the requirement to 

establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the 

engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program under 

14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the 

result of an assessment of the previously 

established programs by Boeing during 

the process of establishing the LOV for 

Model 727 airplanes. The actions 

specified in this proposed AD are 

necessary to complete certain programs 

to ensure the continued airworthiness of 

aging airplane structure and to support 

an airplane reaching its LOV. 

Fatigue tests on Model 727 airplanes 

indicated that cracking can occur at the 

upper fastener holes in the riveted web 

in the horizontal stabilizer center 

section rear spar, because under-gauge 

material was used for the web. Such 

cracking could result in damage to the 

rear spar forging and lead to horizontal 

stabilizer separation and loss of control 

of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

55–46, dated April 8, 1970. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0546. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information identified 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

The effectivity of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970, 

includes four groups of Model 727 

airplanes. We have determined that only 

airplanes in Group III and Group IV are 

still in service. The applicability of this 

proposed AD therefore is limited to 

Group III and Group IV airplanes. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated 

April 8, 1970, specifies a compliance 

time for the modification at a ‘‘major 

overhaul nearest to 20,000 hours.’’ But 

a Structures Task Group (STG) 

recommended a threshold of 60,000 

total flight cycles for the modification. 

This proposed AD specifies that 

threshold, with a grace period of 24 

months or 2,500 flight cycles. We have 

coordinated this compliance time with 

Boeing. 

Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated 

April 8, 1970, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

those conditions in one of the following 

ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 106 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 

estimate the following costs to comply 

with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Modification ............................. 32 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,720 ................................ $7,154 $9,874 $1,036,770 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0546; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–050–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by September 

3, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 727 airplanes, certificated in any 

category, identified as Group III and Group 

IV in Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated 

April 8, 1970. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 55, Stabilizers. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD is intended to complete certain 

mandated programs intended to support the 

airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) 

of the engineering data that support the 

established structural maintenance program. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking 

at the upper fastener holes in the riveted web 

in the horizontal stabilizer center section rear 

spar, which could lead to horizontal 

stabilizer separation and loss of control of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Group III Airplanes: Inspection 

For airplanes identified as Group III in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 

1970: At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do an 

eddy-current inspection for cracks in the 

web, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 60,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(2) Within 24 months or 2,500 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(h) Group III Airplanes: Corrective Actions 

For airplanes identified as Group III in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 

1970: After the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) 

of this AD. 

(1) If no crack is found, before further 

flight, modify the web of the horizontal 

stabilizer center section rear spar, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 55– 

46, dated April 8, 1970. 

(2) If any crack is found, repair before 

further flight using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(i) Group IV Airplanes: Modification 

For airplanes identified as Group IV in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 

1970: At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, modify 

the web of the horizontal stabilizer center 

section rear spar, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 

Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 60,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(2) Within 24 months or 2,500 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; phone: 

562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov. 

(2) For information about AMOCs, contact 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: berhane.alazar@faa.gov. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 5, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17138 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1