Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21569 

category 3 or lower. The petitioner has 

not provided sufficient reason to 

readdress this decision. Additionally, 

the Radiation Source Protection and 

Security Task Force, an interagency task 

force established by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, concluded in its report to 

Congress and the President, ‘‘Radiation 

Source Protection and Security Task 

Force Report’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML062190349), dated August 2006, that 

the appropriate radioactive sources 

(category 1 and category 2 sources) were 

being protected. The Task Force also 

concluded that the IAEA Code of 

Conduct serves as an appropriate 

framework for considering which 

sources warrant additional protection. 

For its 2010 report to Congress and the 

President (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML102230141), the Task Force 

conducted a reevaluation of the 

radionuclides that warrant additional 

security and protection. The Task Force 

found ‘‘that the Category 1 and 2 

quantities remain valid for sealed and 

unsealed sources as the list and 

threshold levels of radionuclides that 

could result in a significant radiological 

exposure device (RED) or radiological 

dispersal device (RDD) event and 

therefore warrant enhanced security and 

protection.’’ The Task Force 

periodically reevaluates the list of 

radionuclides that warrant additional 

security and protection. If the 

radionuclides and/or thresholds change 

in the future, then the NRC would 

consider making changes in a future 

rulemaking. 

For byproduct material below the 

category 2 thresholds, the security of 

radioactive material is covered by 10 

CFR 20.1801 and 20.1802. The 

requirement to ‘‘secure, from 

unauthorized removal or access’’ and to 

‘‘control and maintain constant 

surveillance’’ are considered 

performance-based requirements. 

Licensees are allowed to select methods 

that work best for their facility to ensure 

that there is no unauthorized removal of 

the category 3 and lower neutron 

sources. These requirements provide 

adequate protection for the neutron 

sources, without the need to require a 

specific measure. 

In conclusion, no new information 

has been provided by the petitioner that 

calls into question the established 

thresholds (category 2) that warrant 

additional security measures or the 

performance based approach (nonprescriptive) for ensuring source 

security. This view has been validated 

by the Radiation Source Protection and 

Security Task Force’s conclusions. 

Existing NRC regulations provide the 

basis for reasonable assurance that the 

common defense and security and 

public health and safety are adequately 

protected. Additional rulemaking would 

impose unnecessary regulatory burden 

and is not warranted for the adequate 

protection of the public health and 

safety and the common defense and 

security. 

The NRC appreciates the views of the 

petitioner and encourages feedback from 

the public on any of the NRC processes. 

For the reasons cited in this 

document, the NRC is denying PRM– 

73–15. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of April, 2013. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrew L. Bates, 

Acting Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08511 Filed 4–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0299; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–072–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 all The 

Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. 

This proposed AD was prompted by 

reports of cracks on the elevator rear 

spar stiffener assembly. This proposed 

AD would require repetitive detailed 

inspections for cracking of the elevator 

rear spar stiffener assembly, and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the elevator rear spar 

stiffener assembly, which could 

adversely affect elevator structural 

stiffness, that could lead to elevator 

vibration and possible interference with 

the tab control rod and which could 

result in flutter and consequent loss of 

control of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 28, 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:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave. 

SW., Renton, WA. 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: 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: 

berhane.alazar@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– 

2013–0299; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–072–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:// 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

We received reports of cracks on the 

elevator rear spar stiffener assembly. An 

operator reported finding a crack on the 

rear spar stiffener assembly while 

accomplishing Boeing Service Bulletin 

727–55–0089 to address cracking of the 

elevator rear spar web at the elevator tab 

hinge fittings. A cracked elevator rear 

spar stiffener assembly, if not detected 

and corrected, could adversely affect 

elevator structural stiffness, which 

could result in elevator vibration and 

possible interference with the tab 

control rod and could lead to flutter and 

consequent loss of control of the 

airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 727–55– 

0094, dated March 21, 2012. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0299. 

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 described 

previously. 

The phrase ‘‘related investigative 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Related investigative actions’’ are 

follow-on actions that: (1) Are related to 

the primary actions, and (2) are actions 

that further investigate the nature of any 

condition found. Related investigative 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, inspections. 

In addition, the phrase ‘‘corrective 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Corrective actions’’ are actions 

that correct or address any condition 

found. Corrective actions in an AD 

could include, for example, repairs. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 98 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 

Inspection ..... 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 per inspection cycle..None ............................. $425 per inspection 

cycle.

$41,650 per inspection 

cycle 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need this replacement: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replacement ............................. 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 ......................................... Unknown .................................. $595 

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), 

(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– 

2013–0299; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–072–AD. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21571 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by May 28, 

2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727– 

100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 55, Stabilizers. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

on the elevator rear spar stiffener assembly. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the elevator rear spar stiffener 

assembly, which could adversely affect 

elevator structural stiffness, that could lead 

to elevator vibration and possible 

interference with the tab control rod and 

which could result in elevator flutter and 

consequent loss of control of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this 

AD, at the applicable time specified in table 

1 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 727–55– 

0094, dated March 21, 2012, do a detailed 

inspection for any cracking of the elevator 

rear spar stiffener assembly, and all 

applicable corrective actions, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

727–55–0094, dated March 21, 2012. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable time specified in table 1 of 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 727–55– 

0094, dated March 21, 2012, except as 

provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(h) Exception 

Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 727–55–0094, dated March 21, 2012, 

specifies a compliance time ‘‘from the 

original issue date of this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(i) Optional Replacement 

Replacing the elevator rear spar stiffener 

assembly with a new assembly in accordance 

with Part 4 or 5, as applicable, of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 727–55– 

0094, dated March 21, 2012, terminates the 

inspections required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD for that assembly, except as required by 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(j) Post-Replacement Inspection Compliance 

Time 

For any elevator rear spar stiffener 

assembly replaced as required by paragraph 

(g) of the AD or as specified in paragraph (i) 

of this AD: Do the next inspection required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD for that assembly 

within 96 months after accomplishing the 

replacement and repeat thereafter at the 

times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(k) 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. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: berhane.alazar@faa.gov. 

(2) 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 Ave. SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

28, 2013. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08454 Filed 4–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0304; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–005–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 747–400, 

–400D, and –400F series airplanes. This 

proposed AD was prompted by a report 

of water leakage into the main deck 

cargo wire integration unit (WIU). The 

water flowed from the drip shield 

through disbonded floor seams into the 

aft main equipment center (MEC) drip 

shield gutter, then onto the WIU. This 

proposed AD would require removing 

the cargo liner support; cleaning the aft 

MEC drip shield gutter; and doing a 

one-time general visual inspection for 

disbonded seams, and repair if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also require installing a fiberglass 

reinforcement overcoat to the top 

surface of the aft MEC drip shield 

gutters and installing the cargo liner 

support. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent water penetration into the MEC, 

which could result in the loss of flight 

critical systems. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 28, 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, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS