47520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

qualify or disqualify the appliance as 

‘‘smart?’’ In the alternative, should the 

portion of a given test procedure that 

verifies the ‘‘smart’’ capabilities of the 

appliance be integrated into the existing 

test procedure and internalized in the 

outputted metric on a product-byproduct basis? 

• The ‘‘smart’’ capabilities of an 

appliance are considered as part of a 

‘‘network mode.’’ IEC 62301 defines 

network mode(s) as: ‘‘Any product 

modes where the energy using product 

is connected to a mains power source 

and at least one network function is 

activated (such as reactivation via 

network command or network integrity 

communication) but where the primary 

function is not active.’’ Does this 

definition apply to all covered products 

and consumer equipment, or would 

other definitions apply more 

appropriately to certain products or 

equipment? 

• EPCA authorizes DOE to set 

standards in active, standby, and off 

mode and to amend the EPCA 

definitions for these modes as 

appropriate for a given product. DOE 

requests comments on which of these 

three modes should be used to capture 

‘‘network’’ mode energy use, or whether 

more than one of these modes should be 

used. 

• How do you expect ‘‘smart’’ 

capabilities to change the energy use of 

an appliance in active and standby 

modes? What is the energy use impact 

of ‘‘network mode’’ and how should it 

be accounted for in test procedures? 

• How should test procedures deal 

with various communication standards 

and protocols? 

Implications for Energy Conservation 

Standards Analyses 

DOE recognizes that ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances, however defined, could 

have implications on the economics and 

energy use of covered products analyzed 

during the energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

• What costs and benefits of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances can and should DOE account 

for within the appliance standards 

analytical framework? DOE seeks 

information and data that would help 

quantify such costs and benefits. 

• DOE requests information and data 

on how, if at all, product and equipment 

energy usage profiles change when they 

are equipped with ‘‘smart’’ capabilities. 

DOE specifically seeks data related to 

covered products and equipment. 

• DOE seeks estimates and 

underlying assumptions for market 

share penetration estimates of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances, as well as other 

complementary technologies (such as 

smart meters) that may be necessary to 

the realization of ‘‘smart appliance’’ 

benefits. 

• DOE seeks information and data 

from pilot programs or studies involving 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. DOE also requests 

information of international voluntary 

and regulatory programs addressing 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19303 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0721; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–217–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; ATR–GIE 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional Model 

ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated 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: 

One ATR operator has experienced inflight elevator travel limitations with unusual 

effort being necessary on pitch axis to control 

the aeroplane, while the ‘‘pitch mistrim’’ 

message appeared on the ADU [advisory 

display unit] display. The elevators seemed 

to be jammed. 

During the post-flight inspection, it was 

discovered that the LH [left-hand] elevator 

lower stop assembly was broken at the level 

of the angles, which may have prevented the 

elevator to respond normally to the flight 

control input. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to reduced control of 

the aeroplane. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 19, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–40, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact ATR–GIE 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional, 1, Alle ́e 

Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, 

France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; 

fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; e-mail 

continued.airworthiness@atr.fr; Internet 

http://www.aerochain.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 Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2011–0721; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–217–AD’’ at the beginning of 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 47521 

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 we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2010–0138, 

dated July 1, 2010 (referred to after this 

as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

One ATR operator has experienced inflight elevator travel limitations with unusual 

effort being necessary on pitch axis to control 

the aeroplane, while the ‘‘pitch mistrim’’ 

message appeared on the ADU display. The 

elevators seemed to be jammed. 

During the post-flight inspection, it was 

discovered that the LH elevator lower stop 

assembly was broken at the level of the 

angles, which may have prevented the 

elevator to respond normally to the flight 

control input. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to reduced control of 

the aeroplane. 

For the reasons described above, and as a 

precautionary measure, this [EASA] AD 

requires a one-time [general visual and 

detailed] inspection [for damaged angles] of 

the elevator hinge fittings and the reporting 

of all findings. Depending on the results, 

further action may be considered. 

Corrective actions also include 

replacement of damaged angles with 

serviceable parts; and a detailed 

inspection of adjacent areas for damage, 

and repair if necessary. You may obtain 

further information by examining the 

MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional has 

issued Service Bulletin ATR42–55– 

0014, dated May 11, 2010; and Service 

Bulletin ATR72–55–1006, dated May 

11, 2010. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 86 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 4 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$29,240, or $340 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 60 work-hours and require parts 

costing up to $960, for a cost of up to 

$6,060 per product. We have no way of 

determining the number of products 

that may need these actions. 

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, 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 AD: 

ATR–GIE Avions de Transport Re ́gional: 

Docket No. FAA–2011–0721; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–217–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 19, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to ATR–GIE Avions de 

Transport Re ́gional Model ATR42–200, –300, 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
47522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

–320, and –500 airplanes, all manufacturer 

serial numbers (MSN) up to MSN 643 

inclusive; and Model ATR72–101, –102, 

–201, –202, –211, –212, and –212A airplanes, 

all MSNs up to MSN 728 inclusive; 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 55: Stabilizers. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

One ATR operator has experienced inflight elevator travel limitations with unusual 

effort being necessary on pitch axis to control 

the aeroplane, while the ‘‘pitch mistrim’’ 

message appeared on the ADU [advisory 

display unit] display. The elevators seemed 

to be jammed. 

During the post-flight inspection, it was 

discovered that the LH [left-hand] elevator 

lower stop assembly was broken at the level 

of the angles, which may have prevented the 

elevator to respond normally to the flight 

control input. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to reduced control of 

the aeroplane. 

* * * * * 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Actions 

(g) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, perform a general visual 

inspection of the inboard hinge fitting area 

and a detailed inspection of lower stop 

angles of the inboard hinge fittings on both 

LH and right-hand (RH) elevators, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Avions de Transport Re ́gional 

Service Bulletin ATR42–55–0014, dated May 

11, 2010; or Avions de Transport Re ́gional 

Service Bulletin ATR72–55–1006, dated May 

11, 2010; as applicable. 

(1) If any damaged angle is found during 

the inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD, before further flight, replace the 

damaged angles with serviceable parts and 

accomplish a detailed inspection of the 

adjacent areas to detect any damage, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Avions de Transport Re ́gional 

Service Bulletin ATR42–55–0014, dated May 

11, 2010; or Avions de Transport Re ́gional 

Service Bulletin ATR72–55–1006, dated May 

11, 2010; as applicable. 

(2) If any damage is detected in adjacent 

areas during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further 

flight, repair the damage using a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM 116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its 

delegated agent). 

(h) Submit a report of the findings 

(damaged angles found on the LH and RH 

side elevator) of the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD to ATR Engineering, 

Service Bulletin Group, 1 Allee Pierre Nadot, 

31712 Blagnac Cedex, France, at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) 

or (h)(2) of this AD. The report must include 

the MSN, accomplishment date, registration 

number, number of flights, flight hours, 

inspection results, and performed actions. In 

addition, return any damaged lower stop 

angles to ATR Engineering, Service Bulletin 

Group, 1 Allee Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac 

Cedex, France. 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(i) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be e-mailed to: 

9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: A Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2010–0138, dated July 1, 2010; 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional Service 

Bulletin ATR42–55–0014, dated 

May 11, 2010; and Avions de Transport 

Re ́gional Service Bulletin ATR72–55–1006, 

dated May 11, 2010; for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 

2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19902 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0722; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–262–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain Model 737–100 

and –200 series airplanes. The existing 

AD currently requires various 

inspections for cracks in the outboard 

chord of the frame at body station (BS) 

727 and in the outboard chord of 

stringer (S) 18A, and repair or 

replacement of cracked parts. Since we 

issued that AD, there have been several 

reports of fatigue cracking in the frame 

outboard chord at BS 727 and in the 

radius of the auxiliary chord on 

airplanes that were not affected by the 

existing AD. This proposed AD would 

add airplanes to the applicability 

statement in the existing AD and add 

inspections for cracks in the BS 727 

frame outboard chords and the radius of 

the auxiliary chord, for certain 

airplanes. This proposed AD would also 

remove the inspections of the outboard 

chord of S–18A required by the existing 

AD. We are proposing this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking of the 

outboard and auxiliary chords, which 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1