Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62421

Request for Comments 

We are publishing this notice to 

inform the public that APHIS will 

accept written comments from the 

public regarding these petitions for 60 

days. This is the first time APHIS has 

published a notice of availability of 

petitions to list noxious weeds and 

sought comments. We are publishing 

these petitions and seeking comments 

because the petitions raise unusually 

complex and controversial issues. 

Issues for Discussion 

We are particularly interested in 

comments pertaining to the following 

issues. We request responses to the 

bulleted questions at the end of each 

section: 

In accordance with international 

agreements, APHIS supports all noxious 

weed listings with risk assessments 

based on data and other published 

information. Depending on the source of 

the information, the number of Caulerpa

species ranges from 70 to about 1,000. 

However, there has been little scientific 

research on Caulerpa, and many species 

have not been fully characterized. The 

petitioners requested that all species of 

Caulerpa be listed as noxious weeds 

and submitted information concerning 

four species, in addition to C. taxifolia,

that have caused harmful invasions: C. 

scalpelliformis, C. racemosa, C. 

verticillata, and C. bracypus.

• What data is there to help us 

evaluate the risks associated with nonnative species of Caulerpa other than C. 

taxifolia? 

• How many and what species of 

Caulerpa and other nonvascular plants 

are currently being imported? 

• In addition to aquatic plant 

shipments, ballast water, fishing gear, 

‘‘live rocks,’’ and live fish, what other 

pathways exist that could potentially 

facilitate the spread of C. taxifolia

(Mediterranean clone) and other 

demonstrably invasive, non-native 

Caulerpa species? 

We recognize that regulating the 

importation and interstate movement of 

marine algae is difficult. Most noxious 

weeds are introduced with common 

agricultural commodities and not in the 

marine aquarium trade. The pathways 

by which the algae may travel into the 

United States are not traditional targets 

for agricultural inspection. Among these 

potential pathways are ‘‘live rocks,’’

fishing gear, and live fish, where 

specimens may be merely fragments that 

are not clearly visible. In these cases, 

identifying the presence of C. taxifolia

(Mediterranean clone) has been 

particularly difficult. 

Currently, APHIS’s policy is to 

prohibit the entry of any plant 

intercepted at the port of entry if there 

is reason to believe that it is C. taxifolia

(Mediterranean clone). The importer or 

exporter is given an opportunity to 

establish the identity of specimens that 

resemble C. taxifolia (Mediterranean 

clone). We consider any foreign origin 

Caulerpa to be suspect. 

Expanding our noxious weed program 

to cover additional species of Caulerpa

would require additional funding, 

personnel, training, and possibly 

additional facilities and equipment as 

there is a lack of Agency expertise in the 

area of marine algae and no new funds 

automatically become available when a 

new weed is listed. It seems that, at this 

time, other Federal agencies are not able 

to provide financial or other resources 

in support. Without increased 

appropriations, the program expansion 

could divert attention and resources 

from APHIS’s current weed programs. 

• Given the difficulty of identifying 

C. taxifolia (Mediterranean clone), and 

the existence of native species of 

Caulerpa in United States waters, how 

could APHIS effectively regulate 

additional species and strains of marine 

algae? 

• If we list additional species and 

strains of non-native marine algae, how 

should our current weed program 

resources be shifted in order to regulate 

these other strains or species as well as 

currently listed noxious weeds? 

• If we list additional non-native 

species or strains of non-native marine 

algae, where should most of our existing 

resources and efforts be placed in order 

to be most effective? For example: 

Increased port of entry Inspection, 

surveying, eradication, public 

education, etc.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7711–7714, 7718, 7731, 

7751, and 7754; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

October 2004. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23921 Filed 10–25–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19446; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–130–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 767–200 and –300 Series 

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to certain 

Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires repetitive 

detailed and eddy current inspections of 

the aft pressure bulkhead for damage 

and cracking, and repair if necessary. 

This proposed AD would add one-time 

detailed and high frequency eddy 

current inspections of any ‘‘oil-can’’

located on the aft pressure bulkhead, 

and related corrective actions if 

necessary. An ‘‘oil-can’’ is an area on a 

pressure dome web that moves when 

pushed from the forward side. This 

proposed AD is prompted by reports of 

cracking at ‘‘oil-can’’ boundaries on the 

aft pressure bulkhead. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead, 

which could result in rapid 

depressurization of the airplane and 

possible damage or interference with the 

airplane control systems that penetrate 

the bulkhead, and consequent loss of 

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 10, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

62422 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DC, 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, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical Information: Suzanne 

Masterson, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6441; fax (425) 917–6590. 

Plain Language Information: Marcia 

Walters, marcia.walters@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket Management System (DMS) 

The FAA has implemented new 

procedures for maintaining AD dockets 

electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new 

AD actions are posted on DMS and 

assigned a docket number. We track 

each action and assign a corresponding 

directorate identifier. The DMS AD 

docket number is in the form ‘‘Docket 

No. FAA–2004–99999.’’ The Transport 

Airplane Directorate identifier is in the 

form ‘‘Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–

999–AD.’’ Each DMS AD docket also 

lists the directorate identifier (‘‘Old 

Docket Number’’) as a cross-reference 

for searching purposes.

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2004–19446; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NM–130–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend the 

proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

dms.dot.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. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You can 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you can visit http://

dms.dot.gov. 

We are reviewing the writing style we 

currently use in regulatory documents. 

We are interested in your comments on 

whether the style of this document is 

clear, and your suggestions to improve 

the clarity of our communications that 

affect you. You can get more 

information about plain language at 

http://www.faa.gov/language and http://

www.plainlanguage.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You can examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the DMS 

receives them. 

Discussion 

On February 24, 2004, we issued AD 

2004–05–10, amendment 39–13505 (69 

FR 10321, March 5, 2004), for certain 

Model 767 series airplanes. AD 2004–

05–10 requires repetitive detailed and 

eddy current inspections of the aft 

pressure bulkhead for damage and 

cracking, and repair if necessary. That 

AD was prompted by a report of 

multiple-site fatigue cracking in two lap 

splices on the aft pressure bulkhead of 

one airplane. We issued AD 2004–05–10 

to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the aft pressure bulkhead, which could 

result in rapid depressurization of the 

airplane and possible damage or 

interference with the airplane control 

systems that penetrate the bulkhead, 

and consequent loss of controllability of 

the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

In the ‘‘Differences Between the ASB 

and the AD’’ section of AD 2004–05–10, 

we explained that we were considering 

further rulemaking to require 

inspections of ‘‘oil-cans’’. We now have 

determined that further rulemaking is 

indeed necessary, and this proposed AD 

follows from that determination. 

Relevant Service Information 

As discussed in the preamble of AD 

2004–05–10, we have reviewed Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 767–

53A0026, Revision 5, dated January 29, 

2004. Revision 5 of the ASB describes 

procedures for repetitive detailed 

inspections for damage (e.g., nicks, 

tears, scratches, dents, and corrosion) of 

the aft pressure bulkhead, and repair if 

necessary. The ASB also describes 

procedures for repetitive high frequency 

and low frequency eddy current 

inspections for cracking of the body 

station (BS) 1582 bulkhead, web lap 

splices, and tearstrap splices, and repair 

if necessary. Additionally, the ASB 

describes procedures for a one-time 

detailed inspection and a high 

frequency eddy current inspection of 

the web to determine if any ‘‘oil cans’’

are present, and repair if necessary. 

Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in the service bulletin is 

intended to adequately address the 

identified unsafe condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of this same 

type design. Therefore, we are 

proposing this AD, which would 

supersede AD 2004–05–10. This 

proposed AD would continue to require 

repetitive detailed and eddy current 

inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead 

for damage and cracking, and repair if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also require detailed and high frequency 

eddy current inspections of any ‘‘oilcan’’ located on the aft pressure 

bulkhead, and repair if necessary. This 

proposed AD would require you to use 

the service information described 

previously to perform these actions, 

except as discussed under ‘‘Differences 

Between the Proposed AD and the 

Service Bulletin.’’

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin 

The Boeing ASB provides the 

following information in Note 6 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions: ‘‘For the 

purposes of this service bulletin, do not 

count flight-cycles with a cabin pressure 

differential of 2.0 [pounds per square 

inch (psi)] or less. However, any flightcycle with momentary spikes in cabin 

pressure differential above 2.0 psi must 

be included as a full-pressure flightcycle. Cabin pressure records must be 

maintained for each airplane. Fleet 

averaging of cabin pressure is not 

allowed.’’ We have determined that an 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62423

adjustment of flight cycles due to a 

lower cabin differential pressure is not 

substantiated and will not be allowed 

for use in determining the flight cycle 

threshold for this proposed AD.

Additionally, the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the ASB specify that 

operators may contact the manufacturer 

for disposition of certain repair 

instructions. This AD requires that, if 

repair requirements exceed allowable 

repair criteria, operators must repair per 

a method approved by the FAA or per 

data meeting the type certification basis 

of the airplane approved by a Boeing 

Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized 

by the FAA to make such findings. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2004–05–10. 

Since AD 2004–05–10 was issued, the 

AD format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table:

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 

2004–05–10 

Corresponding

requirement in this

proposed AD 

paragraph (e) ............ paragraph (f). 

paragraph (f) ............. paragraph (g). 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 162 airplanes 

worldwide of the affected design. This 

proposed AD would affect about 99 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

2004–05–10 and retained in this 

proposed AD take about 22 work hours 

per airplane, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

currently required actions is $1,430 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

The new proposed actions would take 

about 2 work hours per ‘‘oil-can,’’ at an 

average labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the new actions specified in this 

proposed AD for U.S. operators is $130 

per ‘‘oil-can.’’ The number of ‘‘oil cans’’

varies per airplane, so an estimate per 

airplane or for the U.S. registered fleet 

is not available. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have 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 that the 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. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation.

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 

removing amendment 39–13505 (69 FR 

10321, March 5, 2004) and adding the 

following new airworthiness directive 

(AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2004–19446; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–130–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this airworthiness 

directive (AD) action by December 10, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004–05–10, 

amendment 39–13505. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767–

200 and –300 series airplanes, certificated in 

any category, as listed in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) 767–53A0026, 

Revision 5, dated January 29, 2004. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking at ‘‘oil-can’’ boundaries on a Boeing 

Model 747 series airplane’s aft pressure 

bulkhead, which is similar to the aft pressure 

bulkheads on Boeing Model 767 series 

airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct fatigue cracking of the aft 

pressure bulkhead, which could result in 

rapid depressurization of the airplane and 

possible damage or interference with the 

airplane control systems that penetrate the 

bulkhead, and consequent loss of 

controllability of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 2004–05–10 

Detailed Inspections and Eddy Current 

Inspections 

(f) Perform a detailed inspection for 

damage and cracking of the aft side of the aft 

pressure bulkhead and perform high 

frequency and low frequency eddy current 

inspections for cracking of the aft pressure 

bulkhead, per the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing ASB 767–53A0026, 

Revision 5, dated January 29, 2004, at the 

later of the times specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

or (f)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat these 

inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,800 

flight cycles.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘an intensive visual 

examination of a specific structural area, 

system, installation, or assembly to detect 

damage, failure, or irregularity. Available 

lighting is normally supplemented with a 

direct source of good lighting at intensity 

deemed appropriate by the inspector. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning 

and elaborate access procedures may be 

required.’’

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 

total flight cycles, or within 1,800 flight 

cycles after the most recent inspection done 

per AD 88–19–03 R1, whichever occurs later; 

or 

(2) Within 90 days after March 22, 2004 

(the effective date of AD 2004–05–10). 

Repair Requirements 

(g) If any damage or cracking is detected 

during any inspections required by paragraph 

(f) of this AD: Before further flight 

accomplish the requirements of paragraph 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: 

(1) For repairs within the limits of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB 

767–53A0026, Revision 5, dated January 29, 

2004, repair per the ASB. 

(2) For any repairs outside the limits, 

repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by a Boeing Company Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER) who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, as required by this 

paragraph, the approval must specifically 

reference this AD. 

New Requirements of This AD 

‘‘Oil-Can’’ Inspection and Repair 

(h) Before the accumulation of 37,500 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,800 flight cycles

62424 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later: Do a one-time detailed and 

surface high frequency eddy current 

inspections at all ‘‘oil-can’’ locations of the 

aft pressure bulkhead web for damage and 

cracks, in accordance with Figure 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the Boeing 

ASB 767–53A0026, Revision 5, dated January 

29, 2004. All ‘‘oil-cans’’ must meet the limits 

specified in the service bulletin.

Note 2: An ‘‘oil-can’’ is an area on a 

pressure dome web that moves when pushed 

from the forward side.

(1) If no damage and no crack is found, no 

further action is required by this paragraph. 

(2) If any damage or crack is found, before 

further flight, repair in accordance with the 

service bulletin, except as required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(3) If any ‘‘oil can’’ does not meet the limits 

specified in the service bulletin, before 

further flight, repair the ‘‘oil can’’ in 

accordance with the service bulletin, except 

as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(i) Where the service bulletin specifies to 

contact Boeing for repair data, before further 

flight, repair the damage or crack per a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, FAA; or per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by a Boeing Company Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER) who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make such findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, as required by this 

paragraph, the approval must specifically 

reference this AD. 

(j) Inspections and repairs accomplished 

before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with Boeing ASB 767–53A0026, 

Revision 4, dated March 27, 2003, are 

considered acceptable for compliance with 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Determining the Number of Flight Cycles for 

Compliance Time 

(k) For the purposes of calculating the 

compliance threshold for the actions required 

by paragraph (f) and (h) of this AD, the 

number of flight cycles in which cabin 

differential pressure is at 2.0 pounds per 

square inch (psi) or less must be counted 

when determining the number of flight cycles 

that have occurred on the airplane. Where 

the service bulletins and this AD differ, the 

AD prevails. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by a 

Boeing Company Designated Engineering 

Representative who has been authorized by 

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those 

findings. 

(3) Alternative methods of compliance, 

approved previously in accordance with AD 

2004–05–10, amendment 39–13505, are 

approved as alternative methods of 

compliance with this AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

18, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23931 Filed 10–25–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19448; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NM–134–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model MD–90–30 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require replacing, with improved parts, 

certain existing fluorescent light lamp 

holders located in the ceiling panels and 

life raft ceiling support housings, and 

behind the overhead stowage 

compartments in the main cabin. This 

proposed AD is prompted by reports of 

failure of fluorescent light lamp holders 

in the main cabin. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent chafing of the lamp 

holder power wire against the mounting 

bracket, and moisture intrusion into the 

lamp holders, which could result in 

failure of the lamp holders and 

consequent smoke and fire in the 

airplane cabin.

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 10, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• By fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., 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 Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach 

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 

Long Beach, California 90846, 

Attention: Data and Service 

Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). 

You can examine the contents of this 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov, or at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of 

the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical information: George Mabuni, 

Aerospace Engineer, Systems and 

Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

telephone (562) 627–5341; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

Plain language information: Marcia 

Walters, marcia.walters@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket Management System (DMS) 

The FAA has implemented new 

procedures for maintaining AD dockets 

electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new 

AD actions are posted on DMS and 

assigned a docket number. We track 

each action and assign a corresponding 

directorate identifier. The DMS AD 

docket number is in the form ‘‘Docket 

No. FAA–2004–99999.’’ The Transport 

Airplane Directorate identifier is in the 

form ‘‘Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–

999–AD.’’ Each DMS AD docket also 

lists the directorate identifier (‘‘Old 

Docket Number’’) as a cross-reference 

for searching purposes. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2004–19448; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NM–134–AD’’ in the subject line 

of your comments. We specifically 

invite comments on the overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects of the proposed AD. 

We will consider all comments 

submitted by the closing date and may 

amend the proposed AD in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each