6254 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), 

and (k) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767– 

32A0227, dated April 25, 2012, which is not 

incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(n) 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. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 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, Washington 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 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 

23, 2013. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01972 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0614; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–351–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 The Boeing Company Model 737– 

300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. 

That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive operational tests of the engine 

fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and 

other related testing if necessary. That 

NPRM was prompted by reports of two 

in-service occurrences on Model 737– 

400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump 

pressure of the fuel feed system, 

followed by loss of fuel system suction 

feed capability on one engine, and inflight shutdown of the engine. This 

action revises that NPRM by proposing 

to require repetitive operational tests, 

and corrective actions if necessary. We 

are proposing this supplemental NPRM 

to detect and correct loss of the engine 

fuel suction feed capability of the fuel 

system, which, in the event of total loss 

of the fuel boost pumps, could result in 

dual engine flameout, inability to restart 

the engines, and consequent forced 

landing of the airplane. Since these 

actions impose an additional burden 

over that proposed in the previous 

NPRM, we are reopening the comment 

period to allow the public the chance to 

comment on these proposed changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by March 18, 

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: 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, 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 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: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion 

Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@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–2008–0614; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–351–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 that would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6255 

apply to all The Boeing Company Model 

737–300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. That NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 

32258). That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive operational tests of the engine 

fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and 

other related testing if necessary. That 

NPRM proposed that those actions be 

done according to a method approved 

by the FAA. 

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32258, June 6, 2008) Was Issued 

Since we issued the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008), we have 

received comments from operators 

indicating a high level of difficulty 

performing the actions in the previous 

NPRM during maintenance operations. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–28A1307, dated May 14, 

2012. This service information describes 

procedures for repetitive operational 

tests of the engine fuel suction feed of 

the fuel system, and corrective actions 

if necessary. The corrective actions 

include isolating the cause of any 

leakage and repairing the leak. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 

32258, June 6, 2008). The following 

presents the comments received on the 

previous NPRM and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Requests To Revise Compliance Time 

Boeing asked that we revise the 

compliance time in paragraph (f) of the 

previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 

2008) (referred to as paragraph (g) in 

this supplemental NPRM) to include a 

calendar time of 3 years for the lowutilization airplanes. Boeing stated that 

low-utilization airplanes may not meet 

the 7,500-flight-hour threshold for 

several years. 

We do not agree with the 3-year 

calendar time. As specified previously, 

Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 

737–28A1307, dated May 14, 2012, 

which specifies a compliance time of 24 

months. Therefore, we have revised 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM to include doing the initial test 

within 7,500 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs first. We have also 

included a repetitive interval of 7,500 

flight hours or 24 months, whichever 

occurs first. 

Continental Airlines (CAL), British 

Airways (BA), KLM Royal Dutch 

Airlines, and Lufthansa Basis (LBA) 

asked that we extend the repetitive 

operational test interval required by 

paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 

FR 32258, June 6, 2008). CAL stated that 

a re-evaluation of the proposed 

repetitive interval limit after doing the 

initial inspection should be done, since 

its service history has revealed no 

reported engine flameout events or 

related operational discrepancies. CAL 

asked that the repetitive interval be 

extended to repeating the inspection 

during a normal maintenance 2C-check 

or within 8,000 flight cycles, whichever 

occurs first. LBA stated that the 

repetitive interval of 7,500 flight hours 

does not match maintenance planning 

data (MPD) or maintenance review 

board (MRB) intervals of every 1 Ccheck and 4,000 flight hours, and asked 

for clarification and revision. KLM 

stated that if an airplane does not pass 

the operational test, a tank entry is 

required, which has an impact on the 

downtime requirements for C-checks. 

KLM asked that the initial compliance 

time be extended from within 7,500 

flight hours to within 8,000 flight hours 

or at the next 2 C-check, with the same 

interval for the repetitive tests. BA 

stated that the test is already covered in 

the MPD task with a compliance time of 

4,000 flight hours. 

We do not agree with the requests to 

revise the compliance time by extending 

the flight-hour compliance time or 

adding maintenance check intervals. 

The compliance time in the MPD is not 

required by this supplemental NPRM 

because we have determined that the 

7,500-flight-hour or 24-month interval, 

whichever occurs first, addresses the 

identified unsafe condition. In 

developing an appropriate compliance 

time for the actions specified in 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008)), we 

considered the safety implications and 

normal maintenance schedules for the 

timely accomplishment of the specified 

actions. We have determined that the 

proposed compliance time will ensure 

an acceptable level of safety and allow 

the actions to be done during scheduled 

maintenance intervals for most affected 

operators. 

However, affected operators may 

request approval of an alternative 

method of compliance (AMOC) for an 

extension of the repetitive operational 

test interval under the provisions of 

paragraph (h) of this supplemental 

NPRM by submitting data substantiating 

that the change would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We have not 

changed the supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Corrective Action 

Boeing asked that the related testing 

language specified in the ‘‘Summary,’’ 

‘‘FAA’s Conclusions,’’ and ‘‘FAA’s 

Determination and Requirements of this 

Proposed AD’’ sections of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) be 

changed. Boeing stated that it should 

specify correcting discrepancies before 

further flight if the engine fails the 

operational test. 

We agree with the request. We have 

revised the language describing the 

proposed actions as appropriate 

throughout this supplemental NPRM. 

We also have changed paragraph (g) of 

this supplemental NPRM to specify 

doing all applicable corrective actions 

before further flight in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

28A1307, dated May 14, 2012. 

Request To Clarify if Engine Fuel 

Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of 

the Operational Test 

KLM asked that we clarify if the fuel 

feed manifold air pressure leak check 

procedure specified in airplane 

maintenance manual (AMM) 28–22–15 

is an alternative to performing the 

operational test. KLM added that this 

alternative test is allowed by AMM 28– 

22–00. 

We agree to provide clarification. The 

manifold leak test (Task 28–22–00–710– 

801) is not equivalent to the operational 

test (Task 28–22–00–710–802) for the 

purposes of this proposed action. The 

positive internal fuel line pressure 

applied during the manifold test does 

not simulate the same conditions 

encountered during fuel suction feed 

(i.e., vacuum), and might mask a failure. 

Therefore, we have not changed the 

supplemental NPRM in this regard. 

Requests To Add AMM Task Card and 

MPD Tasks or Remove Existing 

Reference 

BA, LBA, and Air Nippon (ANK) 

asked that AMM MSG3 Task Card be 

added to paragraph (f) of the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) as a 

method of compliance for performing 

the operational test. BA also asked that 

the NPRM reference the MPD tasks 

associated with the check. The 

commenters stated that the task card is 

equivalent to AMM Task Card B28–22– 

00–2B, which is specified in paragraph 

(f) of the previous NPRM. Boeing asked 

that the NPRM only include AMM Task 

Card B28–22–00–2B in paragraph (f) of 

the previous NPRM, and remove 

reference to AMM 28–22–00. Boeing 

stated that the fewer references, the less 

chance of errors. 

We do not agree to add a reference to 

the task cards and MPD tasks, or to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6256 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

remove the reference to AMM 28–22– 

00. However, we have revised paragraph 

(g) of this supplemental NPRM to 

require accomplishing operational tests 

and applicable corrective actions in 

accordance with Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–28A1307, dated May 14, 

2012. 

Requests To Allow the Use of Later 

Revisions of the Maintenance 

Documents 

Boeing asked that we allow using later 

revisions of the Boeing 737–300/400/ 

500 Task Card B28–22–00–2B, dated 

July 12, 2006, because the task card date 

could be revised over time and would 

require frequent requests for AMOCs. 

BA asked that we allow for using the 

AMM and Boeing task cards having 

Revision July 12, 2006 or later. 

We do not agree with the request. 

Allowing later revisions of service 

documents in an AD is not allowed by 

the Office of the Federal Register 

regulations for approving materials 

incorporated by reference. Affected 

operators may, however, request 

approval to use a later revision of 

referenced service information as an 

AMOC in accordance with paragraph (h) 

of this supplemental NPRM. We have 

not changed the supplemental NPRM in 

this regard. 

Request To Include Warning 

Information 

CAL suggested that the Boeing service 

manuals include a warning 

identification statement to alert 

maintenance personnel of the 

importance of regulatory compliance. 

CAL did not include any justification 

for this request. 

We agree that a warning statement 

would serve as direct communication to 

maintenance personnel that there is an 

AD associated with certain maintenance 

actions, but do not find this additional 

measure necessary to adequately 

address the unsafe condition. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Change to Previous NPRM (73 FR 

32258, June 6, 2008) 

The Costs of Compliance section in 

the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 

6, 2008) has been changed to correct the 

number of U.S.-registered airplanes 

affected. The data source used in 2007, 

which specified a total of 669 airplanes 

of U.S. registry, did not provide an 

accurate count; therefore, we have used 

the current information available to 

determine that 827 airplanes of U.S. 

registry are affected by the actions in 

this supplemental NPRM. 

We have clarified the unsafe 

condition identified in the previous 

NPRM (73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008) by 

specifying that the previous NPRM 

results from two in-service occurrences 

on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss 

of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed 

system, followed by loss of fuel system 

suction feed capability on one engine, 

and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

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 the same type 

design. Certain changes described above 

expand the scope of the previous NPRM 

(73 FR 32258, June 6, 2008). 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 

revise the previous NPRM (73 FR 32258, 

June 6, 2008) by proposing to require 

repetitive operational tests of the engine 

fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 827 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. We estimate the following costs 

to comply with this proposed AD: 

Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Operational Test ..................... Up to 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 per engine, 

per test.

Up to $2,040 .......................... Up to $1,687,080. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide a cost 

estimate for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6257 

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– 

2008–0614; Directorate Identifier 2007– 

NM–351–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by March 18, 

2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company Model 737–300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes, certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of two 

in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 

airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure 

of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of 

fuel system suction feed capability on one 

engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability 

of the fuel system, which in the event of total 

loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in 

dual engine flameout, inability to restart the 

engines, and consequent forced landing of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions 

Within 7,500 flight hours or 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Perform an operational test of the 

engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, 

and do all applicable corrective actions, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–28A1307, dated May 14, 2012. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 

24 months, whichever occurs first. 

Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph 

(h) of this AD, no alternative procedures or 

repetitive test intervals are allowed. 

(h) 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. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: suzanne.lucier@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 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 

18, 2013. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01954 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0031; Airspace 

Docket No. 12–AWA–7] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment of Class C 

Airspace; Nashville International 

Airport, TN 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Nashville International 

Airport, TN, Class C airspace area by 

removing a cutout from the surface area 

that was put in place to accommodate 

operations around an airport that is now 

permanently closed. The FAA is 

proposing this action to return the Class 

C airspace area to the standard 

configuration and enable more efficient 

operations at the Nashville International 

Airport. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0031 and 

Airspace Docket No. 12–AWA–7, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0031 and Airspace Docket No. 12– 

AWA–7) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Nos. FAA–2013–0031 and 

Airspace Docket No. 12–AWA–7.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with