This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

5195 

Vol. 77, No. 22 

Thursday, February 2, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0607; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–024–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300, 

747–400, and 747–400D series 

airplanes; and Model 747–200B series 

airplanes having a stretched upper deck. 

The original NPRM would have 

superseded an existing AD that 

currently requires repetitively 

inspecting for cracking or discrepancies 

of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear 

webs, and frames at body stations 1120 

through 1220; and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

modifying the frame-to-tension-tie joints 

at body stations 1120 through 1220 

(including related investigative actions 

and corrective actions if necessary), 

which would provide a terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections. The 

original NPRM also proposed to require 

new repetitive inspections after the 

modification, corrective actions if 

necessary, and additional modification 

requirements at a specified time after 

the first modification. The original 

NPRM also proposed to remove certain 

airplanes from the applicability. The 

original NPRM was prompted by reports 

of cracked and severed tension ties, 

broken fasteners, and cracks in the 

frame, shear web, and shear ties 

adjacent to tension ties for the upper 

deck. This action revises the original 

NPRM by adding repetitive open hole 

high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections for cracking in the forward 

and aft tension tie channels, and repair 

if necessary. For certain airplanes, this 

supplemental NPRM also requires a 

one-time angle inspection to determine 

if the angle is installed correctly, and reinstallation if necessary; and a one-time 

open hole HFEC inspection at the 

fastener locations where the tension tie 

previously attached to the frame prior to 

certain modifications, and repair if 

necessary. This supplemental NPRM 

also, for the Stage 2 inspections, reduces 

the initial compliance times for those 

inspections. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct cracking of the tension ties, 

shear webs, and frames of the upper 

deck, which could result in rapid 

decompression and reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by March 19, 

2012. 

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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

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; email 

me.boecom@boeing.com; 

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. 

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: 

Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6428; fax (425) 917–6590; 

email: nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

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–2009–0607; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–024–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 

We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) to supersede AD 2007–23–18, 

amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). The original NPRM 

applied to all Boeing Model 747–100B 

SUD, 747–300, 747–400, and 747–400D 

series airplanes; and Model 747–200B 

series airplanes having a stretched 

upper deck. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 13, 2009 (74 FR 33377). The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

original NPRM proposed to supersede 

an existing AD that currently requires 

repetitively inspecting for cracking or 

discrepancies of the fasteners in the 

tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220; and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. The original NPRM 

proposed to require modifying the 

frame-to-tension-tie joints at body 

stations (STA) 1120 through 1220 

(including related investigative actions 

and corrective actions if necessary), 

which would provide a terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections. The 

original NPRM also proposed to require 

new repetitive inspections after the 

modification, corrective actions if 

necessary, and additional modification 

requirements at a specified time after 

the first modification. The original 

NPRM also proposed to remove certain 

airplanes from the applicability. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM was 

Issued 

Since we issued the original NPRM 

(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009), we have 

received reports from one operator that 

three adjacent tension ties were found 

severed on a Model 747–300 series 

airplane with approximately 18,400 

flight cycles. Another operator reported 

that two adjacent tension ties were 

found cracked or severed on a 747–300 

series airplane with approximately 

14,000 flight cycles. In addition, 

operators have reported finding cracks 

in the tension ties and frames during the 

inspection required by the existing AD 

and done in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005. We have received 

revised service information, as 

described below, and included it in the 

supplemental NPRM as the appropriate 

source of service information for 

accomplishing certain actions. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 

1, dated January 14, 2010. Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated 

April 21, 2005, was referred to as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing certain 

actions specified in the original NPRM 

(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, adds 

procedures for the following 

inspections: 

• For all airplanes: Repetitive open 

hole HFEC inspections for cracking in 

the forward and aft tension tie channels 

at 12 fastener locations inboard of the 

aluminum straps at STA 1140, and 

repair if necessary by doing an oversize 

hole repair or repairing the tension tie. 

• For certain airplanes: A one-time 

detailed inspection to determine if the 

angle is installed correctly, and reinstall if necessary. 

• A one-time open-hole HFEC 

inspection for cracks at the fastener 

locations (STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 

1220) where the tension tie previously 

attached to the frame, before 

modification to the Boeing special 

freighter or Boeing converted freighter 

configuration, and repair if necessary by 

doing an oversize hole repair or 

repairing the frame. 

The initial compliance times specified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010, for the new inspections at STA 

1140 is before the accumulation of 

10,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000 

flight cycles after the issue date of 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin, 

whichever is later; with a repetitive 

interval not to exceed 3,000 flight 

cycles. 

The compliance time for the new onetime inspection for mislocated angles is 

within 3,000 flight cycles after the issue 

date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 

14, 2010. 

The compliance time for the new onetime inspection for tie frames at 

previous tension tie locations is within 

3,000 flight cycles after the issue date of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. 

We have also reviewed Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011. Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated 

January 8, 2009, was referred to as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

actions in the original NPRM (74 FR 

33377, July 13, 2009). No more work is 

necessary for airplanes on which Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

dated January 8, 2009, was used to 

accomplish the actions. Certain 

procedures specified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011, have been 

clarified to provide additional 

instructions. We have revised paragraph 

(k) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011, and added a new 

paragraph to give credit for actions done 

before the effective date of the AD in 

accordance with Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 8, 

2009. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM (74 FR 

33377, July 13, 2009). 

Support for Proposed Actions 

United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) 

supports mandating the Stage 2 

inspections specified in the original 

NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009). 

Requests To Extend the Modification 

Compliance Time 

Lufthansa and KLM requested that we 

revise the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, 

July 13, 2009) to extend the compliance 

time for the proposed modification. 

Lufthansa requested a detailed 

explanation about the decision making 

that resulted in the compliance 

threshold of 17,000 flight cycles 

(damage tolerance analysis, 

calculations, findings) for the proposed 

modification, which seems inconsistent 

in light of the Stage 2 inspection 

threshold of 16,000 flight cycles. 

Lufthansa requested that the FAA revise 

the compliance threshold for the 

proposed modification to 20,000 total 

flight cycles. 

KLM also stated that AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), mandates Stage 2 

inspections at 16,000 total flight cycles, 

while the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, 

July 13, 2009) mandates the 

modification at 17,000 total flight 

cycles, and it does not change the Stage 

2 total flight cycles. KLM stated it 

believes many other operators (in 

addition to KLM) have started the AD 

2007–23–18 Stage 2 inspections before 

the 16,000 total flight cycles. KLM 

stated that even though defects were 

found with the Stage 2 inspections, 

most of the defects have not propagated 

to such an extent where they would 

have been found with Stage 1 

inspections. Furthermore, KLM stated 

that the repair methods/procedures used 

to repair defects found during the Stage 

2 inspections have the same intent 

(partial frame/tension tie replacement) 

as the modification, and that the only 

difference is that the design of the 

modification is more durable, given the 

fact that it has an 8,000 total flight cycle 

threshold. 

KLM stated that the Stage 2 

inspection in AD 2007–23–18 

amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007) provides an 

acceptable level of safety to at least 

20,000 flight cycles, and therefore 

proposes that the modification be an 

optional terminating action for the Stage 

1 and Stage 2 inspection in AD 2007– 

23–18. KLM stated that if the FAA still 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5197 

wants to mandate the modification, it 

would like the FAA to consider reevaluating the modification threshold to 

a more realistic threshold given the fact 

that the Stage 2 inspection threshold is 

16,000 flight cycles. 

We agree with Lufthansa and KLM 

that it seems inconsistent to have a 

modification threshold of 17,000 total 

flight cycles, which is just 1,000 cycles 

more than the inspection threshold. 

However, after issuance of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated 

April 21, 2005, the manufacturer 

completed additional analysis and 

determined the new inspection 

threshold should be lowered to 10,000 

total flight cycles. The new inspection 

threshold can be found in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 

1, dated January 14, 2010. We have 

determined this reduced compliance 

time is necessary to address the 

identified unsafe condition and added it 

to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. 

Since the issuance of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated 

April 21, 2005, further cracking in the 

fleet has occurred resulting in 

thresholds being further reduced in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. The modification threshold and 

new inspection threshold are 

appropriate given the quantity and 

nature of cracks found on Model 747 

airplanes, which are based on extensive 

analysis. Due in part to the reporting 

requirement of AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), the manufacturer 

received a significant number of 

inspection findings. The findings 

include numerous cases of single or 

dual tension tie failure and one airplane 

with three adjacent severed tension ties. 

Because the findings constituted 

multiple site damage, a damage 

tolerance analysis alone was no longer 

appropriate. Rather, a widespread 

fatigue damage analysis had to be 

employed to properly analyze the risk of 

cracked and severed tension ties, and to 

set inspection and modification 

thresholds appropriately. The 

manufacturer performed widespread 

fatigue analysis and the FAA accepted 

its findings. 

The analysis, combined with the 

empirical data, supported an inspection 

threshold of 10,000 total flight cycles, as 

reflected in Revision 1 of the Stage 2 

inspection, and a modification 

threshold of 17,000 total flight cycles. 

Therefore, based upon crack reports 

received, material analysis completed, 

and widespread fatigue damage analysis 

performed, the inspection and 

modification thresholds contained in 

this supplemental NPRM are 

appropriate. 

Request for an Optional Modification 

UPS agreed that the modification will 

strengthen the area and protect against 

widespread fatigue damage. UPS stated 

that the current Stage 2 inspections and 

repetitive timeline are effectively 

locating and repairing the discrepant 

areas prior to any damages reaching a 

critical length. Therefore, UPS proposed 

the modification specified in paragraph 

(m) of the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, 

July 13, 2009) not be mandated. UPS 

instead recommended that paragraph 

(m) be offered as an alternative to the 

existing Stage 2 inspections assigned 

per paragraph (j). UPS stated it supports 

the modification of the frames and 

tension ties for the upper deck as 

proposed in the original NPRM, but 

suggested that the current Stage 2 

inspections be allowed to continue as an 

alternative to performing the 

modification. 

Airlines for America (A4A), formerly 

known as the Air Transport Association 

of America (ATA), on behalf of its 

member United Airlines (UAL), and 

Japan Airlines (JAL) both stated that the 

modification is expensive. JAL noted 

the expense is due to kit cost, labor cost 

and the lack of warranty coverage. We 

infer the commenters are requesting that 

the modification be made optional due 

to its cost. UAL also noted that even 

after accomplishing the modification, 

the original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 

13, 2009) would still require post 

modification inspections. 

We disagree with the requests to make 

the required modification optional. As 

we stated previously, the crack finding 

data and analysis performed support the 

inspection and modification thresholds 

in this supplemental NPRM. We have 

not changed the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request for Alternative Terminating 

Modification 

Lufthansa requested we allow 

alternative terminating modifications. 

Lufthansa stated that it is seeking 

alternative solutions and intervals for 

relief in view of the huge design 

deficiency driven modification work 

necessary for its Model 747 airplanes. 

Lufthansa asked that an alternative 

modification be allowed using new 

parts with existing part numbers, 

instead of mandating a modification 

using new parts and new part numbers. 

KLM noted that no alternative to the 

proposed modification has been 

considered. 

We disagree with the request for an 

alternative modification of the frame-totension-tie joints proposed in this 

supplemental NPRM. An alternative 

method of compliance approving a 

modification using new parts with 

existing part numbers does not remove 

all of the unsafe condition. The 

modification in this supplemental 

NPRM includes reinforcing the fuselage 

frames; therefore ‘‘* * * using new 

parts with existing part numbers instead 

of mandating a modification using new 

parts and new part numbers’’ does not 

reinforce the fuselage tension ties or 

frames, and would not address the 

identified unsafe condition. We are 

mandating the overall reinforcement 

modification to achieve a long-term 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Correct Errors in Service 

Information 

All Nippon Airways (ANA) and JAL 

noted that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, 

contains typographical errors. JAL asks 

that these errors be corrected before an 

AD is issued. ANA stated that Boeing 

issued Service Bulletin Information 

Notice 747–53A2559 IN 01, to correct 

the typographical errors in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated 

January 8, 2009. ANA asks that Boeing 

Service Bulletin Information Notice 

747–53A2559 IN 01 be included in this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Paragraph (m) of the original NPRM 

(74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) refers to 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for the proposed 

requirements. Boeing corrected the 

errors in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, by 

issuing Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 

2011. We have replaced all references to 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, in this 

supplemental NPRM. 

JAL stated that there are also errors in 

the effectivity section of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated 

January 8, 2009, and added that Model 

747–400 Boeing Converted Freighter 

(BCF) airplanes are not identified 

correctly. Boeing added that the 

effectivity should exclude airplane 

RT743, which was converted to a Large 

Cargo Freighter (LCF) airplane on which 

the subject tension ties were removed. 

Boeing stated that the airplane is 

therefore not subject to the unsafe 

condition. Boeing also noted that there 

are currently no plans to revise this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

service bulletin to remove that airplane 

from the effectivity. 

We do not agree to reidentify Model 

747–400 BCF airplanes in the 

applicability of this supplemental 

NPRM. BCF airplanes continue to be 

modified and as such, the applicability 

in this supplemental NPRM follows the 

group categorization of airplanes using 

the Group/Configuration/Description 

table in paragraph 1.A., ‘‘Effectivity’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, dated January 8, 2009. We 

have not changed the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

We agree to exclude airplanes that 

have been converted to a Model 747– 

400 LCF configuration from the 

applicability of this supplemental 

NPRM. That airplane configuration no 

longer has the subject tension ties to 

inspect or modify, so is not subject to 

the unsafe condition. We have changed 

paragraph (c) of this supplemental 

NPRM to exclude those airplanes. 

Request To Clarify Additional 

Modification 

ANA stated that paragraph (m) of the 

original NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 

2009), proposed to require modification 

and post-modification inspections in 

accordance with Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 8, 

2009. ANA noted that the additional 

modification as specified in this service 

bulletin is an open-hole HFEC 

inspection, not a modification. ANA 

asked that we revise paragraph (m)(2) of 

the NPRM to clarify the term 

‘‘additional modification’’ as an openhole inspection. 

We disagree that the additional 

modification is an open-hole HFEC 

inspection. Paragraph (m)(2) of the 

supplemental NPRM (also paragraph 

(m)(2) of the original NPRM (74 FR 

33377, July 13, 2009)) requires doing an 

additional modification using a method 

approved in accordance with the 

procedures in the alternative methods of 

compliance (AMOC) paragraph. At this 

time, we have not approved a method 

that meets the conditions for the 

additional modification. However, 

under the provisions of paragraph (s)(1) 

of this AD, we will consider requests for 

accomplishing a modification if data are 

submitted to substantiate that it would 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

Request To Change Cost Information 

ANA stated that its work hour 

estimate, based on the time it took to do 

a modification identical to that in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, dated January 8, 2009, 

exceeded 2,000 work hours. ANA added 

that the estimated costs in the original 

NPRM (74 FR 33377, July 13, 2009) are 

based on the work hours addressed in 

this service bulletin. ANA asked that the 

actual work hours be considered to 

estimate the costs. 

We disagree with the request. The 

cost information in this supplemental 

NPRM describes only the direct costs of 

the specific required actions. Based on 

the best data available, the manufacturer 

provided the number of work hours 

necessary to do the required actions. 

This number represents the time 

necessary to perform only the actions 

actually required by this supplemental 

NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by an AD, operators 

might incur incidental costs in addition 

to the direct costs. But the cost analysis 

in AD rulemaking actions typically does 

not include incidental costs such as the 

time necessary for planning, airplane 

down time, or time necessitated by 

other administrative actions. Those 

incidental costs, which might vary 

significantly among operators, are 

almost impossible to calculate. We have 

not changed the supplemental NPRM 

regarding this issue. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this supplemental 

NPRM because we evaluated all the 

relevant information and determined 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

in other products of these same type 

designs. Certain changes described 

above expand the scope of the original 

NPRM. As a result, we have determined 

that it is necessary to reopen the 

comment period to provide additional 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on this supplemental NPRM. 

Proposed Requirements of the 

Supplemental NPRM 

This supplemental NPRM would 

require accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information 

described previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 561 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet, 

which includes 67 U.S.-registered 

airplanes. The following table provides 

the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work hour. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost 

Stage 1 inspections (required by AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November 

23, 2007)).

19 ................. $0 ................. $1,615 per inspection 

cycle.

$108,205 per inspection 

cycle. 

Stage 2 inspections (required by AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, November 

23, 2007)).

83 ................. $0 ................. $7,055 ............................... $472,685 per inspection 

cycle. 

Modification (new proposed action) ............................. 257 to 263 .... $341,334 to 

$345,490.

$363,179 to $367,845 ....... $24,332,993 to 

$24,645,615.1

Post-modification inspections (new proposed action) 6 ................... $0 ................. $510 per inspection cycle $34,170 per inspection 

cycle. 

1 Depending on airplane configuration. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5199 

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 

removing amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007) and adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0607; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NM–024–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by March 19, 

2012. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2007–23–18, 

Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100B SUD, 747–300, 

747–400, and 747–400D series airplanes; and 

Model 747–200B series airplanes having a 

stretched upper deck; certificated in any 

category; excluding airplanes that have been 

converted to a large cargo freighter 

configuration. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD results from reports of cracked 

and severed tension ties, broken fasteners, 

and cracks in the frame, shear web, and shear 

ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper 

deck. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the tension ties, shear 

webs, and frames of the upper deck, which 

could result in rapid decompression and 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007– 

23–18, Amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), With Revised 

Compliance Times and New Service 

Information: Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections 

With Reduced Repetitive Interval 

For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections 

for cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners 

in the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220, and related 

investigative and corrective actions as 

applicable, by doing all actions specified in 

and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 1 Inspection’’ 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by 

paragraph (k) of this AD; or Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, 

dated January 14, 2010. As of the effective 

date of this AD only Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, may be used. Do the Stage 

1 inspections at the applicable times 

specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, 

except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the 

initial Stage 2 inspection required by 

paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of this paragraph. Any 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions must be done before 

further flight. Doing the modification 

required by paragraph (l) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005, specifies a compliance 

time relative to ‘‘the original issue date on 

this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires 

compliance before the specified compliance 

time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date 

of AD 2006–06–11). 

(2) For any airplane that reaches the 

applicable compliance time for the initial 

Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1, 

Compliance Recommendations, under 

paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005) 

before reaching the applicable compliance 

time for the initial Stage 1 inspection: 

Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 

inspection eliminates the need to do the 

Stage 1 inspections. 

(h) Compliance Time for Initial Stage 1 

Inspection 

Do the initial Stage 1 inspection at the 

earlier of the times specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. 

(1) At the earlier of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) At the applicable time specified in 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated 

April 21, 2005. 

(ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after 

November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 

2007–23–18, amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 

65655, November 23, 2007)), whichever 

occurs later. 

(2) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, 

whichever occurs first, after November 28, 

2007. 

(i) Compliance Times for Repetitive Stage 1 

Inspections 

Repeat the Stage 1 inspection specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD at the time specified 

in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter 

at intervals not to exceed 250 flight cycles, 

until the initial Stage 2 inspection required 

by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done. 

(1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 

1 inspection has not been accomplished as of 

November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection 

before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight 

cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after the 

initial Stage 1 inspection done in accordance 

with paragraph (j) of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

(2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 

1 inspection has been accomplished as of 

November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection 

at the applicable time specified in paragraph 

(i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated 

fewer than 12,000 total flight cycles as of 

November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection 

before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight 

cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after 

November 28, 2007, whichever occurs later. 

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 

12,000 total flight cycles or more as of 

November 28, 2007: Do the next inspection 

at the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this 

AD. 

(A) Within 250 flight cycles after 

accomplishment of the initial Stage 1 

inspection. 

(B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, 

whichever occurs first, after November 28, 

2007. 

(j) Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections With 

Reduced Initial Compliance Time 

For all airplanes: Do detailed and high 

frequency eddy current inspections for 

cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners in 

the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at 

body stations 1120 through 1220, and related 

investigative and corrective actions as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

applicable, by doing all actions specified in 

and in accordance with ‘‘Stage 2 Inspection’’ 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

dated April 21, 2005; or Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010; except as provided by 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Do the initial 

inspections at the earlier of the times 

specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 

AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection thereafter 

at the applicable times specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005. 

As of the effective date of this AD only 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, may be 

used. Any applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions must be done before 

further flight. Accomplishment of the initial 

Stage 2 inspection ends the repetitive Stage 

1 inspections. Doing the modification 

required by paragraph (m) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after November 28, 2007; whichever occurs 

later. 

(2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(k) Exception to Corrective Action 

Instructions 

If any discrepancy including but not 

limited to any crack, broken fastener, loose 

fastener, or missing fastener is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h) 

or (i) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, dated April 21, 2005; 

or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010; 

specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate 

action: Before further flight, repair the 

discrepancy using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (s) of this AD. 

(l) Reporting Requirement 

At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, submit 

a report of the findings (both positive and 

negative) of each Stage 1 inspection required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD to Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes; Attention: Manager, 

Airline Support; P.O. Box 3707 MC 04–ER; 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; fax (425) 

266–5562. The report must include the 

inspection results, a description of any 

discrepancies found, the inspections 

performed, the airplane serial number, and 

the number of total accumulated flight cycles 

on the airplane. Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.), the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in this AD 

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

2120–0056. 

(1) For any inspection done after November 

28, 2007: Submit the report within 30 days 

after the inspection. 

(2) For any inspection done before 

November 28, 2007: Submit the report within 

30 days after November 28, 2007. 

(m) New Requirements of This AD: 

Modification 

Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) 

and (m)(2) of this AD: At the times specified 

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

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011, modify the frame-totension-tie joints at body stations (STA) 1120 

through 1220; do all related investigative and 

applicable corrective actions; do the 

repetitive post-modification detailed 

inspections for cracking of the tension tie and 

frame structure and all applicable corrective 

actions; and do the additional modification. 

Do all actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011. Modifying the frameto-tension-tie joints at body stations 1120 

through 1220 terminates the repetitive 

inspection requirements of paragraphs (g) 

and (j) of this AD. 

(1) Where paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, 

Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a 

compliance time relative to ‘‘the original 

issue date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions or additional modification 

requirements: Before further flight, repair the 

cracking or do the modification using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this 

AD. 

(n) Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2559, dated January 

8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding actions required by this 

AD. 

(o) Stage 2 Inspection: Additional Work at 

STA 1140 

For all airplanes: Except as provided by 

paragraph (r) of this AD; at the time specified 

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

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010; do an 

open hole high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for cracking in the forward 

and aft tension tie channels at 12 fastener 

locations inboard of the aluminum straps at 

STA 1140, and before further flight do all 

applicable repairs. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the 

time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance.’’ 

(p) One-Time Inspection for Mis-Located 

Angles 

For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as 

identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010: Except as provided by paragraph (r) of 

this AD; at the time specified in paragraph 

1.E, ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, do a detailed inspection to 

determine if the angle is installed correctly, 

and before further flight re-install all angles 

installed incorrectly. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. 

(q) One-Time Inspection for Cracks in 

Frames at Previous Tension Tie Locations 

For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes; 

and Group 2 and 3 airplanes; as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as 

provided by paragraph (r) of this AD; at the 

time specified in paragraph 1.E, 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated 

January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC 

inspection for cracks at the fastener locations 

(STA 1120, 1160, 1200, and 1220) where the 

tension tie previously attached to the frame 

prior to modification to the Boeing special 

freighter or Boeing Converted Freighter 

configuration, and before further flight do all 

applicable repairs. Do all actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 

2010. 

(r) Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2507, Revision 1, Dated January 14, 

2010 

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

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2507, 

Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, specifies 

a compliance time relative to ‘‘the Revision 

1 date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(s) 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) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5201 

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. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2007–23–18, 

amendment 39–15266 (72 FR 65655, 

November 23, 2007), are approved as AMOCs 

for the corresponding requirements of 

paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD. 

(t) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: 

(425) 917–6590; email: 

nathan.p.weigand@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, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

(206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766– 

5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(3) 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 January 

12, 2012. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2301 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 173 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–F–0853] 

Ecolab, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive 

Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing 

that Ecolab, Inc., has filed a petition 

proposing that the food additive 

regulations be amended to provide for 

the safe use of sodium 

dodecylbenzenesulfonate as an 

antimicrobial agent in produce wash 

water without the requirement of a 

potable water rinse. 

DATES: Submit either electronic or 

written comments on the petitioner’s 

environmental assessment by March 5, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic 

comments to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit written 

comments to the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celeste Johnston, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740– 

3835, (240) 402–1282. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), 

notice is given that a food additive 

petition (FAP 2A4785) has been filed by 

Ecolab, Inc., 370 North Wabasha St., St. 

Paul, MN 55102–1390. The petition 

proposes to amend the food additive 

regulations in 21 CFR part 173, 

Secondary Direct Food Additives 

Permitted in Food for Human 

Consumption, to provide for the safe use 

of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate as 

an antimicrobial agent in produce wash 

water without the requirement of a 

potable water rinse. 

The potential environmental impact 

of this petition is being reviewed. To 

encourage public participation 

consistent with regulations issued under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is 

placing the environmental assessment 

submitted with the petition that is the 

subject of this notice on public display 

at the Division of Dockets Management 

(see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public 

review and comment. 

Interested persons may submit to the 

Division of Dockets Management (see 

ADDRESSES) either electronic or written 

comments regarding this document. It is 

only necessary to send one set of 

comments. Identify comments with the 

docket number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

FDA will also place on public display 

any amendments to, or comments on, 

the petitioner’s environmental 

assessment without further 

announcement in the Federal Register. 

If, based on its review, the Agency finds 

that an environmental impact statement 

is not required, and this petition results 

in a regulation, the notice of availability 

of the Agency’s finding of no significant 

impact and the evidence supporting that 

finding will be published with the 

regulation in the Federal Register in 

accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b). 

Dated: January 19, 2012. 

Dennis M. Keefe, 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2279 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1062] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Bear Creek, Dundalk, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

operation of the Baltimore County 

highway bridge at Wise Avenue across 

Bear Creek, mile 3.4, between Dundalk 

and Sparrows Point, MD. The proposed 

change will alter the four hour advance 

notice requirement for a bridge opening 

to a 48-hour advance notice requirement 

for a bridge opening. Due to the lack of 

openings, it is not necessary to have 

personnel available on a four-hour 

notice. The operating regulation change 

will allow Baltimore County to more 

efficiently utilize the maintenance 

personnel who are responsible for the 

operation of the bridge. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–1062 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (202) 366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS