30040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(3) The NPPO must review and 

maintain all forms and documents 

related to export program activities in 

places of production and packinghouses 

for at least 1 year and, as requested, 

provide them to APHIS for review. 

(b) Place of production requirements. 

(1) The personnel conducting the 

trapping required in paragraph (c) of 

this section must be hired, trained, and 

supervised by the NPPO of the 

exporting country. The exporting 

country’s NPPO must certify that each 

place of production has effective fruit 

fly trapping programs, and follows 

control guidelines, when necessary, to 

reduce quarantine pest populations. 

APHIS may monitor the places of 

production. 

(2) The places of production 

producing pitaya for export to the 

United States must be registered with 

the NPPO of the exporting country. 

(3) Trees and other structures, other 

than the crop itself, must not shade the 

crop during the day. No C. capitata or 

A. ludens host plants may be grown 

within 100 meters of the edge of the 

production site. 

(4) Pitaya fruit that has fallen on the 

ground must be removed from the place 

of production at least once every 7 days 

and may not be included in field 

containers of fruit to be packed for 

export. 

(5) Harvested pitaya fruit must be 

placed in field cartons or containers that 

are marked to show the place of 

production. 

(c) Mitigation measures for C. capitata 

and A. ludens. (1) Pest-free places of 

production. (i) Beginning at least 1 year 

before harvest begins and continuing 

through the end of the shipping season, 

trapping for A. ludens and C. capitata 

must be conducted in the places of 

pitaya fruit production with at least 1 

trap per hectare of APHIS-approved 

traps, serviced every 7 days. 

(ii) From 2 months prior to harvest 

through the end of the shipping season, 

when traps are serviced, if either A. 

ludens or C. capitata are trapped at a 

particular place of production at 

cumulative levels above 0.07 flies per 

trap per day, pesticide bait treatments 

must be applied in the affected place of 

production in order for the place of 

production to remain eligible to export 

pitaya fruit to the continental United 

States. If the average A. ludens or C. 

capitata catch is greater than 0.07 flies 

per trap per day for more than 2 

consecutive weeks, the place of 

production is ineligible for export until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of less than 0.07 flies per trap per day. 

(iii) The NPPO must maintain records 

of fruit fly detections for each trap, 

update the records each time the traps 

are checked, and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 

1 year for APHIS review. 

(2) Pest-free area for C. capitata. If the 

pitaya fruit are produced in a place of 

production located in an area that is 

designated as free of C. capitata in 

accordance with § 319.56–5, the 

trapping in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section is not required for C. capitata. 

(d) Packinghouse requirements. (1) 

The packinghouses must be registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

(2) All openings to the outside must 

be covered by screening with openings 

of not more than 1.6 mm or by some 

other barrier that prevents pests from 

entering the packinghouses. 

(3) The packinghouses must have 

double doors at the entrance to the 

facilities and at the interior entrance to 

the area where the pitaya fruit are 

packed. 

(4) While in use for packing pitaya 

fruit for export to the United States, the 

packinghouses may only accept pitaya 

fruit that are from registered places of 

production and that are produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section. 

(e) Post-harvest procedures. The 

pitaya fruit must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse. Pitaya fruit must be 

packed in insect-proof cartons or 

containers that can be sealed at the 

packinghouse, or covered with insectproof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for 

transport to the United States. These 

safeguards must be intact upon arrival 

in the United States. 

(f) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) The 

NPPO of the exporting country must 

visually inspect a biometric sample of 

pitaya fruit, jointly approved by APHIS 

and the NPPO of the exporting country, 

for D. neobrevipes and P. minor, and cut 

open a portion of the fruit to detect A. 

ludens and C. capitata. If the fruit is 

from a pest-free area for C. capitata, 

then the fruit will only be inspected for 

A. ludens. 

(2) The fruit are subject to inspection 

at the port of entry for all quarantine 

pests of concern. Shipping documents 

identifying the place(s) of production in 

which the fruit was produced and the 

packing shed(s) in which the fruit was 

processed must accompany each lot of 

fruit presented for inspection at the port 

of entry to the United States. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(3) If D. neobrevipes or P. minor is 

found, the entire consignment of fruit 

will be prohibited from import into the 

United States unless the shipment is 

treated with an approved treatment 

monitored by APHIS. If inspectors 

(either from the exporting country’s 

NPPO or at the U.S. port of entry) find 

a single fruit fly larva in a shipment, 

they will reject the entire consignment 

for shipment to the United States, and 

the place of production for that 

shipment will be suspended from the 

export program until appropriate 

measures, agreed upon by the NPPO of 

the exporting country and APHIS, have 

been taken. 

(g) Commercial consignments. The 

pitaya fruit may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of pitaya fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country, containing an 

additional declaration stating that the 

fruit in the consignment was produced 

in accordance with requirements in 7 

CFR 319.56–51. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

May 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12755 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1167] 

Proposed Airworthiness Directives 

Legal Interpretation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Extension of comment period 

for a proposed airworthiness directives 

legal interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration published a proposed 

airworthiness directives legal 

interpretation for comment. In response 

to several requests, we are extending the 

comment period to allow additional 

time for comment. Comments from the 

public are requested to assist the agency 

in developing the final legal 

interpretation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–1167 using any of the following 

methods: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30041 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

King, Staff Attorney, Regulations 

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 14, 2011, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

published a proposed airworthiness 

directives legal interpretation in the 

Federal Register for comment (72 FR 

20898). The FAA received numerous 

comments by the close of the comment 

period on May 16, 2011. Included in the 

comments were requests to extend the 

comment period to allow additional 

time for comment. The FAA is granting 

an extension until June 30, 2011, for the 

public to review the proposed 

interpretation and provide comments. 

We are repeating the publication of the 

proposal for the convenience of the 

reader. 

The Request 

The FAA’s Organization/Procedures 

Working Group (WG) of the 

Airworthiness Directive Implementation 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD 

ARC) requested that the FAA provide a 

legal interpretation of several provisions 

in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

that would help resolve a number of 

issues that have been debated within the 

WG. These issues partly result from 

certain changes made in the plain 

language revision to CFR part 39 in 2002 

(see 67 FR 47998, July 22, 2002). 

Question 1—Continuing Obligation 

Some members of the WG question 

the extent of an aircraft operator’s 

continuing obligation to maintain an 

AD-mandated configuration. They ask 

about two regulations: 

§ 39.7 What is the legal effect of failing to 

comply with an airworthiness directive? 

Anyone who operates a product that does 

not meet the requirements of an applicable 

airworthiness directive is in violation of this 

section. 

§ 39.9 What if I operate an aircraft or use 

a product that does not meet the 

requirements of an airworthiness directive? 

If the requirements of an airworthiness 

directive have not been met, you violate 

§ 39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or 

use the product. 

The majority WG opinion is that the 

language of § 39.7, and its predecessor 

§ 39.3, imposes an operational mandate 

that the requirements of the AD be 

maintained for each operation occurring 

after the actions required by the AD are 

accomplished. They conclude that 

§ 39.9 expresses the well-established 

legal position that for continuing 

operations of products that do not 

comply with an AD, each flight is a 

separate violation. 

The minority WG opinion is that if 

the unsafe condition identified in the 

AD was fixed at a moment in time, then 

§ 39.7 no longer applies. The conclusion 

of the WG minority was that even if the 

product was determined to be in a 

condition contrary to the requirements 

of the AD at a later time, this change in 

configuration may be a violation of CFR 

43.l3 (b), but not § 39.7. 

Proposed Response 1—Continuing 

Obligation 

Section 39.9 notes the need for both 

initial action by the aircraft operator and 

continued compliance by that aircraft 

operator with the AD requirements. 

Section 39.9 was added to the final rule 

in 2002 as a result of comments that the 

proposed version of the rule language 

combined compliance and noncompliance issues in one heading 

(proposed § 39.5, final version is § 39.7 

of the 2002 rulemaking). The final rule 

preamble stated that the agency added 

§ 39.9 ‘‘to refer to § 39.7, which is the 

rule that operators will violate if they 

fail to operate or use a product without 

complying with an AD that applies to 

that product.’’ 

Section 39.9 explains the continuing 

obligation for aircraft operators to 

maintain the AD-mandated 

configuration. Section 39.7 imposes an 

operational requirement. Because the 

AD imposes an enforceable requirement 

to accomplish the mandated actions, the 

only way to give § 39.7 any meaning is 

to recognize that operators are required 

to maintain the AD-mandated 

configuration. Once the AD 

requirements are met an operator may 

only revert to normal maintenance if 

that maintenance does not result in 

changing the AD-mandated 

configuration. 

The objective of part 39 and ADs 

generally is not just to require 

accomplishment of particular actions; it 

is to ensure that, when products are 

operated, they are free of identified 

unsafe conditions. Section 39.7 is the 

regulatory means by which the FAA 

prevents reintroduction of unsafe 

conditions. In 1965 the FAA recognized 

that maintenance may be the cause of 

some unsafe conditions: ‘‘the 

responsibilities placed on the FAA by 

the Federal Aviation Act justify 

broadening the regulation [part 39] to 

make any unsafe condition, whether 

resulting from maintenance, design, 

defect, or otherwise, the proper subject 

of an AD.’’ (Amendment 39–106; 30 FR 

8826, July 14, 1965). Prior to 

Amendment 39–106 ADs could not be 

issued unless the unsafe condition was 

related to a design feature. After 

Amendment 39–106 ADs could be 

issued for unsafe conditions however 

and wherever found. The FAA does not 

issue ADs as a substitute for enforcing 

maintenance rules. If a maintenance 

process is directly related to an unsafe 

condition, that maintenance action 

would be proper for an AD. Particularly 

for unsafe conditions resulting from 

maintenance, it would be self-defeating 

to interpret § 39.7 as allowing reversion 

to the same maintenance practices that 

caused or contributed to the unsafe 

condition in the first place. 

Question 2—Additional Actions 

Some members of the WG questioned 

the extent of an aircraft operator’s 

obligation to accomplish actions 

referenced in an AD beyond those 

actions necessary to resolve the unsafe 

condition specifically identified in an 

AD. 

The opinion of these WG members is 

that a reasonable interpretation of the 

language in § 39.11 directing action to 

‘‘resolve an unsafe condition’’ limits the 

FAA from requiring actions that do ‘‘not 

relate to correcting’’ the identified 

unsafe condition. In other words, an AD 

is limited to those tasks that resolve the 

unsafe condition, even if other tasks are 

explicitly listed in the AD or in a 

referenced service bulletin (SB). Even if 

§ 39.11 doesn’t explicitly limit the types 

of actions that the FAA may mandate in 

ADs, these members believe that ADs 

are limited to imposing requirements 

that are both necessary and ‘‘directly 

related’’ to addressing an unsafe 

condition because that is the sole 

purpose of ADs, as defined in part 39. 

The belief is that this would allow an 

operator to comply with those actions 

that, in the operator’s opinion, correct 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the unsafe condition without having to 

obtain an alternative means of 

compliance (AMOC) for other actions, 

such as access and close-up procedures, 

that are ‘‘not directly related’’ to 

addressing that identified unsafe 

condition. 

Other members of the WG have the 

opinion that § 39.11 is merely 

descriptive of the types of actions 

required by an AD; it neither imposes 

obligations on the operator nor limits 

the FAA’s authority in issuing an AD. 

These members believe that, given the 

FAA’s broad regulatory authority, ADs 

may impose requirements that operators 

may not consider necessary and 

‘‘directly related’’ to resolving the unsafe 

condition. 

Proposed Response 2—Additional 

Actions 

The FAA points to the language 

contained in § 39.11 that answers the 

WG’s second question. 

§ 39.11 What actions do airworthiness 

directives require? 

Airworthiness directives specify 

inspections you must carry out, conditions 

and limitations you must comply with, and 

any actions you must take to resolve an 

unsafe condition. 

First Title 49, United States Code, 

§ 44701, establishes the FAA’s broad 

statutory authority to issue regulations 

in the interest of aviation safety, and the 

issuance of an AD is an exercise of this 

authority. While describing the types of 

actions required by ADs, § 39.11 does 

not limit the broad authority established 

by the statute. The requirements of the 

AD are imposed by the language of the 

AD itself, and not by § 39.11. Thus an 

AD may require more actions than 

correcting the specific unsafe condition. 

An example would be an AD 

requirement for certain continuing 

maintenance actions to prevent or detect 

the unsafe condition in the future. 

In developing an AD, the FAA 

exercises its discretion in determining 

what actions are to be required in the 

interest of aviation safety. This 

discretion is limited only by the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s 

prohibition on rulemaking actions that 

are ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ Provided 

the actions required by an AD are 

reasonably related to the purpose of 

resolving the unsafe condition, it is 

within the FAA’s discretion to mandate 

them. For example, service information 

frequently includes instructions for 

accessing the area to be worked on to 

address the unsafe condition. Because 

these access instructions are reasonably 

related to addressing the unsafe 

condition, it is within the FAA’s 

discretion to mandate them. 

We understand that some members of 

the AD ARC believe that some ADs are 

overly prescriptive with respect to 

mandated actions that they believe are 

unnecessary to address the unsafe 

condition. As explained previously, 

§ 39.11 does not address this concern. 

Rather, the rulemaking process by 

which individual ADs are adopted 

provides the public with an opportunity 

to identify and comment upon these 

concerns with each AD. In addition, 

each AD contains a provision allowing 

for approval of an AMOC, which allows 

operators to obtain relief from 

requirements they consider unnecessary 

or unduly burdensome. 

Question 3—Use of the Term 

‘‘Applicable’’ 

A WG member cited the use of the 

term ‘‘applicable’’ in a specific AD, AD 

2007–07–02 (72 FR 14400, March 28, 

2007), which contains these 

requirements: 

(f) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the activation 

mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator 

of each passenger service unit (PSU) by doing 

all the applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin specified in Table 

1 of this AD. [Emphasis added.] 

The WG member asked for an 

explanation of the FAA’s use of the 

word ‘‘applicable’’ in the two instances 

of its use in the paragraph (f) of the AD. 

Proposed Response 3—Use of the Term 

‘‘Applicable’’ 

‘‘Applicable’’ has the same meaning in 

both places in paragraph (f). The second 

usage references Table 1 in the AD that 

identifies the model(s) of airplanes to 

which each service bulletin applies. So 

the ‘‘applicable service bulletin’’ is the 

one that applies to each corresponding 

airplane model, as indicated in the table 

in the AD. Similarly, ‘‘all the applicable 

actions’’ specified in each applicable 

service bulletin are those actions that 

are identified as applying to a particular 

airplane. ‘‘Applicable’’ is a necessary 

qualifier in this context for two reasons: 

(1) In many ADs, the referenced service 

bulletins specify different actions for 

different airplane configurations, 

typically identified as ‘‘Group 1, Group 

2,’’ etc. (2) In many ADs, the referenced 

service bulletins specify different 

actions depending upon conditions 

found during accomplishment of 

previous steps in the instructions, for 

example, if a crack is smaller than a 

specified size, repair in accordance with 

the Structural Repair Manual; if larger, 

repair in accordance with a method 

approved by the Aircraft Certification 

Office. So ‘‘applicable’’ limits the AD’s 

requirements to only those that are 

specified in the service bulletin for the 

configuration and conditions of the 

particular airplane. We intend for the 

word ‘‘applicable’’ to limit the required 

actions to those that apply to the 

particular airplane under the specific 

conditions found. 

The opinion that ‘‘applicable’’ in this 

context should be interpreted to refer 

only to those actions in the service 

bulletin that are necessary to address 

the unsafe condition, and that operators 

should not be required to accomplish 

any other actions that they determine 

are not necessary, is incorrect. Without 

the modifier ‘‘applicable,’’ the 

requirement to accomplish ‘‘all actions 

specified in the service bulletin’’ would 

literally mandate accomplishing all 

actions, whether or not applicable to the 

configuration and condition of a 

particular airplane. The modifier 

‘‘applicable’’ is necessary to avoid this 

literal, but unintended and likely overly 

burdensome, meaning. 

For example, in AD 2007–07–02 

different actions are required depending 

on the conditions found while 

accomplishing the modification. The 

adjective, ‘‘applicable,’’ is necessary to 

limit the required actions to those that 

are indicated for the conditions found. 

The purpose of the phrase, ‘‘by 

accomplishing all the applicable actions 

specified,’’ is to eliminate precisely the 

ambiguity that would be introduced by 

the WG members’ question. The 

operator is required to accomplish ‘‘all’’ 

the actions that are ‘‘applicable’’ to the 

affected airplane, without allowing 

discretion to determine which ones are, 

in the operator’s opinion, ‘‘necessary’’ to 

address the unsafe condition. 

Question 4—Impossibility 

A member of the AD ARC questions 

whether an AD needs to specifically 

address ‘‘impossibilities’’ (for example, 

an AD requiring an action that is not 

possible for the specific aircraft to 

which the AD applies, such as 

modifying parts that have been removed 

during an earlier alteration). 

Proposed Response 4—Impossibility 

The FAA points to the language of 

§§ 39.15 and 39.17 that answers the 

fourth question. 

§ 39.15 Does an airworthiness directive 

apply if the product has been changed? 

Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to 

each product identified in the airworthiness 

directive, even if an individual product has 

been changed by modifying, altering, or 

repairing it in the area addressed by the 

airworthiness directive. 

§ 39.17 What must I do if a change in a 

product affects my ability to accomplish the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30043 

actions required in an airworthiness 

directive? 

If a change in a product affects your ability 

to accomplish the actions required by the 

airworthiness directive in any way, you must 

request FAA approval of an alternative 

method of compliance. Unless you can show 

the change eliminated the unsafe condition, 

your request should include the specific 

actions that you propose to address the 

unsafe condition. Submit your request in the 

manner described in § 39.19. 

If a change to a product makes it 

impossible to comply with the 

requirements of an AD, then the 

operator must request an AMOC 

approval. 

The FAA does not have the resources 

to determine the modification status of 

every product to which the AD may 

apply. If it is impossible to comply with 

an AD as written, that does not mean 

the product does not have the unsafe 

condition. The only way to make sure 

the product does not, or that there is 

another acceptable way to address it, is 

to require an operator to obtain an 

AMOC approval. 

For several years before part 39 was 

revised in 2002 the FAA included a 

Note in every AD that contained the 

same substance as the regulation. This 

revision to the regulations was a result 

of some operators claiming that an AD 

did not apply to a particular airplane 

because the airplane’s configuration had 

changed, even though that airplane was 

specifically identified in the 

‘‘Applicability’’ paragraph of the AD. But 

a change in product configuration does 

not necessarily mean that the unsafe 

condition has been eliminated, and in 

some cases the unsafe condition may 

actually be aggravated. So it is necessary 

to emphasize that the ‘‘Applicability’’ 

paragraph of the AD determines AD 

applicability, not the configuration of an 

individual airplane. In the case of the 

affected component having been 

removed from the airplane, the operator 

must obtain an AMOC approval. If the 

removed component is replaced with a 

different component that may or may 

not retain the unsafe condition, this is 

a technical issue that must be addressed 

through the AMOC process. There are 

infinite variations on the ‘‘impossibility’’ 

issue that cannot be anticipated when 

drafting an AD but for which the AMOC 

process is well suited. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 

2011. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12733 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0475; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–199–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 757 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. For certain 

airplanes, this proposed AD would 

require the installation of new relays 

adjacent to two of the spoiler control 

modules that would prevent the 

deployment of certain spoiler pairs 

when landing flaps are selected. For 

certain other airplanes, this proposed 

AD would require torquing the bracket 

assembly installation nuts and ground 

stud nuts, and doing bond resistance 

tests between the bracket assemblies 

and the terminal lugs on the ground 

studs. This proposed AD is prompted by 

numerous reports of unintended lateral 

oscillations during the final approach, 

just before landing. We are proposing 

this AD to reduce the chance of 

unintended lateral oscillations near 

touchdown, which could result in loss 

of lateral control of the airplane, and 

consequent airplane damage or injury to 

flight crew and passengers. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 

1; fax: 206–766–5680; e-mail: 

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: 

Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, 

Flight Controls, ANM–130S, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6418; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail: 

marie.hogestad@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0475; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–199–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 have received numerous reports of 

Boeing 757 events where the flight 

crews experienced unintended lateral 

oscillations during the final approach, 

just before landing. One event resulted 

in a nose gear collapse after a hard 

landing and another event resulted in a 

tail strike during a landing that was 

aborted because of the oscillations. The 

oscillations are characterized by large 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS