Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14719 

account for the aggregate industry 

investment in research and 

development required to produce 

compliant products at each efficiency 

level. 

The GRIM uses this information in 

conjunction with inputs from other 

analyses including manufacturer 

production costs from the engineering 

analysis, and shipments and price 

trends from the NIA to model industry 

annual cash flows from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period. 

The primary quantitative output of this 

model is the industry net present value 

(INPV), which DOE calculates as the 

sum of industry cash flows, discounted 

to the present day using industry 

specific weighted average costs of 

capital. 

Standards can affect INPV in several 

ways including increasing the cost of 

production and impacting manufacturer 

markups, as well as requiring upfront 

investments in manufacturing capital 

and product development. Under 

potential standards for set-top boxes, 

DOE expects that manufacturers and 

video programming distributors may 

lose a portion of the INPV, which is 

calculated as the difference between 

INPV in the base-case (absent new 

energy conservation standards) and in 

the standards-case (with new energy 

conservation standards in effect). DOE 

examines a range of possible impacts on 

industry by modeling scenarios with 

various standard levels and pricing 

strategies. 

In addition to INPV, the MIA also 

calculates the manufacturer markups, 

which are applied to the engineering 

cost estimates to arrive at the 

manufacturer selling price. For 

efficiency levels that require extensive 

software development, DOE calibrated 

the manufacturer markups to allow for 

the recovery of this upfront cost by 

amortizing the investment over the units 

shipped in the first three years of the 

analysis period. Due to the complexities 

of video programming distributor 

pricing models, DOE simplified its 

assumption regarding markups from the 

video programming distributor to the 

consumer by assuming that the 

incremental cost of a more efficient settop box is directly passed on to the 

consumer. The resulting selling prices 

are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analyses, as well as in the NIA. 

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

The LCC and PBP analyses determine 

the economic impact of potential 

standards on individual consumers. The 

LCC is the total cost of purchasing, 

installing and operating a set-top box 

over the course of its lifetime. The LCC 

analysis compares the LCC of a set-top 

box designed to meet possible energy 

conservation standards with the LCC of 

a set-top box likely to be installed in the 

absence of standards. DOE determines 

LCCs by considering: (1) Total installed 

cost to the consumer (which consists of 

manufacturer selling price, distribution 

chain markups, and sales taxes); (2) the 

range of annual energy consumption of 

set-top boxes that meet each of the 

efficiency levels considered as they are 

used in the field; (3) the operating cost 

of set-top boxes (e.g., energy cost); (4) 

set-top box lifetime; and (5) a discount 

rate that reflects the real consumer cost 

of capital and puts the LCC in presentvalue terms. The PBP represents the 

number of years needed to recover the 

increase in purchase price of higherefficiency set-top boxes through savings 

in the operating cost. PBP is calculated 

by dividing the incremental increase in 

installed cost of the higher efficiency 

product, compared to the baseline 

product, by the annual savings in 

operating costs. 

For set-top boxes, DOE determined 

the range in annual energy consumption 

using outputs from the engineering 

analysis (power consumption at each 

efficiency level) and from a 

representative field-metered sample of 

television usage (both live broadcast and 

DVR viewing). Total installed costs at 

each CSL are outputs from the MIA. 

Recognizing that several inputs to the 

determination of consumer LCC and 

PBP are either variable or uncertain 

(e.g., annual energy consumption, 

product lifetime, electricity price, 

discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC 

and PBP analysis by modeling both the 

uncertainty and variability in the inputs 

using Monte Carlo simulation and 

probability distributions. 

The primary outputs of the LCC and 

PBP analyses are: (1) Average LCCs; (2) 

median PBPs; and (3) the percentage of 

households that experience a net 

benefit, have no impact, or have a net 

cost for each potential set-top box 

grouping and efficiency level. The 

average annual energy consumption 

derived in the LCC analysis is used as 

an input in the NIA. 

D. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA estimates the national energy 

savings (NES) and the net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings expected to result from potential 

new standards at each CSL. DOE 

calculated NES and NPV for each CSL 

as the difference between a base-case 

forecast (without new standards) and 

the standards-case forecast (with 

standards). Cumulative energy savings 

are the sum of the annual NES 

determined for the lifetime of set-top 

boxes shipped during the analysis 

period. Energy savings include the fullfuel cycle energy savings (i.e., the 

energy needed to extract, process, and 

deliver primary fuel sources such as 

coal and natural gas, and the conversion 

and distribution losses of generating 

electricity from those fuel sources). The 

NPV is the sum over time of the 

discounted net savings each year, which 

consists of the difference between total 

operating cost savings and increases in 

total installed costs. NPV results are 

reported for discount rates of 3%, 5%, 

and 7%. 

To calculate the NES and NPV, DOE 

projected future shipments and 

efficiency distributions (for each CSL) 

for each potential set-top box grouping. 

DOE recognizes the uncertainty in 

projecting shipments and efficiency 

distributions, and as a result the NIA 

includes several different scenarios for 

each. Other inputs to the NIA include 

the estimated set-top box lifetime used 

in the LCC analysis, manufacturer 

selling prices from the MIA, and average 

annual energy consumption from the 

LCC. 

The purpose of this NODA is to notify 

industry, manufacturers, consumer 

groups, efficiency advocates, 

government agencies, and other 

stakeholders of the publication of the 

initial analysis of potential energy 

conservation standards for set-top 

boxes. Stakeholders should contact DOE 

for any additional information 

pertaining to the analyses performed for 

this NODA. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05344 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0205; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–226–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14720 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 747SP series 

airplanes, and certain The Boeing 

Company Model 747–100B SUD and 

747–300 series airplanes. This proposed 

AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the fuselage skin just 

above certain lap splice locations is 

subject to widespread fatigue damage 

(WFD). This proposed AD would 

require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the fuselage skin above 

certain lap splice locations, and repair 

if necessary. We are proposing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the fuselage skin, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane and sudden loss of cabin 

pressure. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 22, 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: 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, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. 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 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 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 proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0205; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–226–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 

Structural fatigue damage is 

progressive. It begins as minute cracks, 

and those cracks grow under the action 

of repeated stresses. This can happen 

because of normal operational 

conditions and design attributes, or 

because of isolated situations or 

incidents such as material defects, poor 

fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, 

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can 

occur locally, in small areas or 

structural design details, or globally. 

Global fatigue damage is general 

degradation of large areas of structure 

with similar structural details and stress 

levels. Multiple-site damage is global 

damage that occurs in a large structural 

element such as a single rivet line of a 

lap splice joining two large skin panels. 

Global damage can also occur in 

multiple elements such as adjacent 

frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage 

cracks are typically too small initially to 

be reliably detected with normal 

inspection methods. Without 

intervention, these cracks will grow, 

and eventually compromise the 

structural integrity of the airplane, in a 

condition known as widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, 

WFD will likely occur, and will 

certainly occur if the airplane is 

operated long enough without any 

intervention. 

The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR 

69746, November 15, 2010) became 

effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD 

rule requires certain actions to prevent 

catastrophic failure due to WFD 

throughout the operational life of 

certain existing transport category 

airplanes and all of these airplanes that 

will be certificated in the future. For 

existing and future airplanes subject to 

the WFD rule, the rule requires that 

DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) 

of the engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program. 

Operators affected by the WFD rule may 

not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, 

unless an extended LOV is approved. 

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) does not require 

identifying and developing maintenance 

actions if the DAHs can show that such 

actions are not necessary to prevent 

WFD before the airplane reaches the 

LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend 

on accomplishment of future 

maintenance actions. As stated in the 

WFD rule, any maintenance actions 

necessary to reach the LOV will be 

mandated by airworthiness directives 

through separate rulemaking actions. 

We recognize that the WFD rule (75 

FR 69746, November 15, 2010) is 

unusual in that it might depend on 

future rulemaking to fully achieve its 

safety objectives. In the context of WFD, 

this approach is necessary to enable 

DAHs to propose LOVs that allow 

operators the longest operational lives 

for their airplanes, and still ensure that 

WFD will not occur. This approach 

allows for an implementation strategy 

that provides flexibility to DAHs in 

determining the timing of service 

information development (with FAA 

approval), while providing operators 

with certainty regarding the LOV 

applicable to their airplanes. 

Two operators of Model 757 airplanes 

have reported cracking on two airplanes 

that initiated at multiple locations on 

the inboard surface of the skin, along 

the edge of the chem-milled step just 

above the skin lap splice (which was 

addressed by AD 2011–01–15, 

Amendment 39–16572 (76 FR 1351, 

January 10, 2011)). No cracking of this 

kind has been reported on Model 747 

airplanes, but analysis has determined 

that the Model 747 fuselage skin in 

certain areas might be susceptible to 

similar cracking. Such fatigue cracking 

of the fuselage skin could result in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 14721 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane and sudden loss of cabin 

pressure. The skin at the edge of chemmilled steps above certain skin lap 

splices has been determined to be 

structure that is susceptible to WFD. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2854, dated September 

17, 2012. For information on the 

procedures and compliance times, see 

this service information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0205. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD 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. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

The phrase ‘‘related investigative 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Related investigative actions’’ are 

follow-on actions that: (1) are related to 

the primary actions, and (2) are actions 

that further investigate the nature of any 

condition found. Related investigative 

actions in an AD could include, for 

example, inspections. 

In addition, the phrase ‘‘corrective 

actions’’ might be used in this proposed 

AD. ‘‘Corrective actions’’ are actions 

that correct or address any condition 

found. Corrective actions in an AD 

could include, for example, repairs. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747– 

53A2854, dated September 17, 2012, 

specifies to contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions, but this proposed AD would 

require repairing those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Inspection ..... Up to 57 work-hours × $85 per 

hour = $4,845, per inspection 

cycle.

$0 Up to $4,845, per inspection cycle Up to $19,380, per inspection 

cycle. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates 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: 

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– 

2013–0205; Directorate Identifier 2012– 

NM–226–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 22, 

2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

airplanes, certificated in any category, 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(c)(3) of this AD. 

(1) All Model 747SP airplanes. 

(2) Model 747–100B SUD airplanes, line 

numbers 636 and 655. 

(3) Model 747–300 airplanes, line numbers 

692 through 695 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 53, Fuselage. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that the fuselage skin just above certain lap 

splice locations is subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of 

the fuselage skin, which could result in 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane 

and sudden loss of cabin pressure. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspection 

Perform external sliding probe eddy 

current inspections of the fuselage skin for 

cracking, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2854, dated 

September 17, 2012, except where this 

service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing 

for inspection instructions, this AD requires 

doing the inspection using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do the 

inspection at the applicable initial 

compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2854, dated September 17, 

2012, except where this service bulletin 

specifies a compliance time after the 

‘‘original issue date of this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(1) If no cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable compliance time intervals 

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

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2854, 

dated September 17, 2012. 

(2) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of 

this AD. 

(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. 

(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. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

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, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

20, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05191 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0618; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–355–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 777 

airplanes. That NPRM proposed to 

require performing 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 revise the maintenance program to 

incorporate a revision to the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the maintenance planning data (MPD) 

document. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct failure of the engine fuel suction 

feed 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 April 22, 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS