Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 219, November 15, 2010, Pages 69571-69850 Page: 69,612
viii, 69849, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 219/Monday, November 15, 2010/Proposed Rules
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD
rescission. Using the search function of
the Web site, anyone can find and read
the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the
individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477-78).
Discussion
On April 23, 1998, the FAA Engine &
Propeller Directorate issued engine AD
98-09-27 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998).
On April 30, 2001, the FAA Transport
Airplane Directorate issued airplane AD
2001-09-14 (66 FR 23838, May 10,
2001). Those ADs both require the same
initial and repetitive visual inspections
of Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768 and
772 series turbofan engine thrust
reverser hinge lugs and attachment ribs
for cracks, and, if necessary, removal
from service and replacement with
serviceable parts.
Since we issued engine AD 98-09-27
and airplane AD 2001-09-14, we
determined that duplicate ADs to
address the same unsafe condition were
unnecessary.
FAA's Determination and Requirements
of This Proposed AD Rescission
We are proposing this AD rescission
of AD 98-09-27 because we evaluated
all information and determined that two
FAA ADs with the same requirements
are not necessary.
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 authoritybecause 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
rescission would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD rescission
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 rescission of a
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 rescission and placed
it in the AD docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
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
rescinding airworthiness directive (AD)
98-09-27, Amendment 39-10508 (63
FR 24911, May 6, 1998):
Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2010-
0960; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-09-
AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by
December 30, 2010.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD rescinds AD 98-09-27.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc
RB211-Trent 768, 772, and 772B turbofan
engines. These engines are installed on, but
not limited to, Airbus A330-341 and A330-342 series airplanes.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
November 5, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28583 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2010-1111; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-129-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 747-200B, -300, -400,
-400D, and -400F Series Airplanes
Powered by Pratt and Whitney 4000 or
General Electric CF6-80C2 Series
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 747-200B, -300, -400, -400D,
and -400F series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require an
inspection to determine the part number
of the door and to determine if the
correct mid-pivot access door is
installed, and the installation of a
marker on the mid-pivot access door,
and if necessary, repetitive ultrasonic
inspections for cracking of the mid-
pivot bolt assembly and eventual
replacement of the mid-pivot bolt
assembly. This proposed AD results
from a report that the left and right
spring beam mid-pivot bolt assembly
access doors for the No. 1 strut were
inadvertently installed in the incorrect
position during strut modification. We
are proposing this AD to detect and
correct incorrectly installed mid-pivot
bolt assemblies on the spring beam on
the outboard struts. Incorrectly installed
bolt assemblies could lead to fatigue
cracking and consequent fracturing of
the mid-pivot bolt assembly, which
could lead to loss of the spring beam
load path and the possible separation of
a strut and engine from the airplane
during flight.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 30,
2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments byany of the following methods:
69612
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 219, November 15, 2010, Pages 69571-69850, periodical, November 15, 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52800/m1/50/?rotate=90: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.