Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16749 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

26, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6236 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27776; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–170–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all Airbus 

Model A318–100, A319–100, A320–200, 

A321–100, and A321–200 series 

airplanes, and Model A320–111 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires an inspection to determine 

whether certain braking and steering 

control units (BSCUs) are installed or 

have ever been installed. For airplanes 

on which certain BSCUs are installed or 

have ever been installed, the existing 

AD requires an inspection of the nose 

landing gear (NLG) upper support and 

corrective action if necessary, and a 

check of the NLG strut inflation 

pressure and an adjustment if necessary. 

For some of these airplanes, the existing 

AD also requires a revision to the 

aircraft flight manual to incorporate an 

operating procedure to recover normal 

steering in the event of a steering 

failure. This proposed AD would 

require repetitive inspections of the 

NLG upper support, and related 

investigative/corrective actions in 

accordance with new service 

information; and would remove the onetime inspection that was required by the 

existing AD. This proposed AD also 

would provide an optional terminating 

action for the repetitive inspections. 

This proposed AD results from a report 

of an incident where an airplane landed 

with the NLG turned 90 degrees from 

centerline, and from additional reports 

of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs 

rupturing in service. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent landings with the 

NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, 

which could result in reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

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

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

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

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2007–27776; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–170–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

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

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

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

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

On November 16, 2005, we issued AD 

2005–24–06, amendment 39–14386 (70 

FR 70715, November 23, 2005), for all 

Airbus Model A318–100, A319–100, 

A320–200, A321–100, and A321–200 

series airplanes, and Model A320–111 

airplanes. That AD requires an 

inspection to determine whether certain 

braking and steering control units 

(BSCUs) are installed or have ever been 

installed. For airplanes on which certain 

BSCUs are installed or have ever been 

installed, that AD requires an inspection 

of the nose landing gear (NLG) upper 

support and corrective action if 

necessary, and a check of the NLG strut 

inflation pressure and an adjustment if 

necessary. For some of these airplanes, 

that AD also requires a revision to the 

aircraft flight manual (AFM) to 

incorporate an operating procedure to 

recover normal steering in the event of 

a steering failure. That AD resulted from 

a report of an incident where an 

airplane landed with the NLG turned 90 

degrees from centerline. We issued that 

AD to prevent landings with the NLG 

turned 90 degrees from centerline, 

which could result in reduced 

controllability of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2005–24–06, 

several additional NLG upper support 

anti-rotation lugs have ruptured in 

service, which could lead to the 

inability to retract the NLG and possible 

landings with the nose wheel turned 90 

degrees from centerline. Investigations 

showed that the affected airplanes were 

all equipped with enhanced 

manufacturing and maintainability 

(EMM) BSCU (Standard L4.1 and L4.5). 

The NLG shock absorber was also found 

to be over-pressurized on some of these 

airplanes, which resulted in increased 

loads on the upper support. As a result, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16750 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the manufacturer developed a repetitive 

boroscope inspection of the NLG upper 

support lugs and cylinder lugs to 

replace the one-time inspection, and an 

optional terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–32–1310, dated February 8, 2006. 

The service bulletin describes 

procedures for doing a records review to 

determine if the airplane is equipped 

with or has ever been equipped with an 

EMM BSCU. For those airplanes that are 

equipped with an EMM BSCU, the 

service bulletin describes procedures for 

doing a repetitive special detailed 

inspection (boroscopic) for broken or 

cracked NLG upper support lugs and 

missing cylinder lugs, and related 

investigative/corrective actions. The 

related investigative/corrective actions 

follow: 

• If the upper support anti-rotation 

lugs are broken or cracked, or if a 

cylinder lug is missing: Do a pressure 

check of the NLG shock absorber 

(weight on and weight off wheels); 

report the measured pressure, ‘H’

dimension, temperature, and boroscopic 

inspection findings to Airbus for further 

assessment; and restore the NLG in 

accordance with Airbus 

recommendations. 

• If there are no findings: At the 

initial threshold inspection, do a 

servicing check (weight on wheels) of 

the NLG shock absorber. If the pressure 

is not within permissible tolerance, 

adjust the pressure and do the servicing 

check again with the weight off the 

wheels. If the pressure is not within 

permissible tolerance with the weight 

off the wheels, do a full service of the 

NLG shock absorber. The service 

bulletin states that it is not necessary to 

do these actions again at the repetitive 

intervals unless there is a finding during 

the boroscopic inspection. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, mandated the service 

information and issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2006–0174, 

dated June 21, 2006, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in the European Union. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

These airplane models are 

manufactured in France and are type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. As described in FAA Order 

8100.14A, ‘‘Interim Procedures for 

Working with the European Community 

on Airworthiness Certification and 

Continued Airworthiness,’’ dated 

August 12, 2005, EASA has kept the 

FAA informed of the situation described 

above. We have examined EASA’s 

findings, evaluated all pertinent 

information, and determined that AD 

action is necessary for airplanes of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

This proposed AD would supersede 

AD 2005–24–06 and would retain the 

requirements of the existing AD, except 

for the boroscope inspection required 

within 90 days specified in paragraph 

(i)(2), and the repair requirements of 

paragraph (j) of AD 2005–24–06. This 

proposed AD would also require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences among the Proposed AD, 

the EASA Airworthiness Directive, and 

the Service Bulletin.’’

Differences Among the Proposed AD, 

the EASA Airworthiness Directive, and 

the Service Bulletin 

The service bulletin specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for further 

assessment of the reported measured 

pressure, ‘H’ dimension, temperature, 

and boroscope inspection findings of 

the NLG shock absorber, but this 

proposed AD does not require such 

reporting and assessment. The service 

bulletin also specifies restoring the NLG 

in accordance with Airbus 

recommendations, but this proposed AD 

would require restoring the NLG in 

accordance with a method approved by 

the FAA or the EASA (or its delegated 

agent). 

Changes to Existing AD 

We have changed the airplane model 

designations in the applicability and in 

paragraph (f), ‘‘Records Review,’’ of this 

proposed AD to be consistent with the 

parallel EASA airworthiness directive. 

We have clarified paragraph (f) of this 

proposed AD to refer to BSCU standard 

L4.1 and L4.5, and added that Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–32–1310, dated 

February 8, 2006, is one approved 

method for doing the records review. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

following table provides the estimated 

costs for U.S. operators to comply with 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work hour. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost 

Records review (required by AD 2005–24–06) ...................................................... 1 None ........... $80 .............. $57,600. 

AFM revision (required by AD 2005–24–06) .......................................................... 1 None ........... $80 .............. $57,600. 

Special detailed inspection in accordance with new service information (new 

proposed action).

1 None ........... $80, .............

per inspection cycle.

$57,600, per 

inspection 

cycle. 

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 have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16751 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by removing amendment 39–14386 (70 

FR 70715, November 23, 2005) and 

adding the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2007–27776; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–170–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by May 7, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2005–24–06. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report of an 

incident where an airplane landed with the 

nose landing gear (NLG) turned 90 degrees 

from centerline, and from additional reports 

of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs 

rupturing in service. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 

degrees from centerline, which could result 

in reduced controllability of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 

2005–24–06 

Records Review 

(f) Within 5 days after November 30, 2005 

(the effective date of AD 2005–24–06), 

perform a records review to determine 

whether the airplane is equipped with or has 

ever been equipped with an enhanced 

manufacturing and maintainability (EMM) 

braking and steering control unit (BSCU) part 

number (P/N) E21327001 (standard L4.1, 

installed by Airbus Modification 26965, or 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1912) or P/ 

N E21327003 (standard L4.5, installed by 

Airbus Modification 33376, or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–32–1261). Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–32–1310, dated February 8, 

2006, is one approved method for doing the 

records review. 

(g) For airplanes on which a records review 

required by paragraph (f) of this AD 

conclusively determines that the airplane is 

not and never has been equipped with a 

BSCU P/N E21327001 or P/N E21327003, no 

further action is required by this AD. 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision 

(h) For airplanes that are not specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD and on which Airbus 

Modification 31152 has not been 

incorporated in production (i.e., applicable 

only to aircraft with steering powered by the 

green hydraulic system): Within 10 days after 

November 30, 2005, revise the Limitation 

Section of the Airbus A318/319/320/321 

Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) to include the 

following information. This may be done by 

inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM: 

‘‘The ECAM message, in case of a nose 

wheel steering failure, will be worded as 

follows: 

—‘‘WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT’’ for aircraft 

with the FWC E3 and subsequent standards 

—‘‘WHEEL N.W STEER FAULT’’ for aircraft 

with the FWC E2 Standard. 

• If the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT 

ECAM caution is triggered at any time in 

flight, and the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT 

ECAM caution is triggered after the landing 

gear extension: 

• When all landing gear doors are 

indicated closed on ECAM WHEEL page, 

reset the BSCU: 

—A/SKID&N/W STRG—OFF THEN ON 

• If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM 

caution is no longer displayed, this 

indicates a successful nose wheel recentering and steering recovery. 

• Rearm the AUTO BRAKE, if necessary. 

• If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM 

caution remains displayed, this indicates 

that the nose wheel steering remains lost, 

and that the nose wheels are not 

centered. 

—During landing, delay nose wheel 

touchdown for as long as possible. 

—Refer to the ECAM STATUS. 

• If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM 

caution appears, without the L/G SHOCK 

ABSORBER FAULT ECAM caution: 

—No specific crew action is requested by 

the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM 

caution procedure. 

—Refer to the ECAM STATUS.’’

Note 1: When a statement identical to that 

in paragraph (h) of this AD has been included 

in the general revisions of the AFM, the 

general revisions may be inserted into the 

AFM, and the copy of this AD may be 

removed from the AFM. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Inspection Thresholds 

(i) For airplanes that are not specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD, at the earlier of the 

times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) 

of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection 

(boroscopic) for broken or cracked NLG 

upper support lugs and missing cylinder 

lugs, and do all applicable related 

investigative/corrective actions before further 

flight. Do all actions in accordance with 

Airbus Technical Note 957.1901/05, dated 

October 18, 2005, or the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–

32–1310, dated February 8, 2006. After the 

effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–32–1301, dated February 8, 

2006, may be used. Where the service 

bulletin specifies that restoring the NLG is 

necessary in accordance with Airbus 

recommendations, this AD requires restoring 

the NLG in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated 

agent). Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable interval specified in paragraph (j) 

or (k) of this AD. 

(1) Within 100 flight cycles following an 

electronic centralized aircraft monitoring 

(ECAM) caution ‘‘L/G SHOCK ABSORBER 

FAULT’’ associated with at least one of the 

following centralized fault display system 

(CFDS) messages specified in paragraph 

(i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD. 

(i) ‘‘N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 24GA TGT 

POS.’’

(ii) ‘‘N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 25GA TGT 

POS.’’

(iii) ‘‘N L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT 

2526GM.’’

(2) At the later of the times specified in 

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

(i) Within 20 months, 6,000 flight hours, or 

4,500 flight cycles since the date of issuance 

of the original French standard airworthiness 

certificate, or French export certificate of 

airworthiness, whichever occurs first. 

(ii) Within 6 months, 1,800 flight hours, or 

1,350 flight cycles after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs first. 

Repetitive Inspection Intervals 

(j) For airplanes not specified in paragraph 

(g) of this AD that are equipped with EMM 

BSCU standard L4.1 or L4.5: Repeat the 

inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this 

AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the 

earliest of 6 months; 1,800 flight hours; 1,350 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16752 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following 

certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, 

as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. 

(k) For airplanes not specified in paragraph 

(g) of this AD that are equipped with EMM 

BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU: 

Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph 

(i) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed the earliest of 20 months; 6,000 flight 

hours; 4,500 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles 

following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS 

messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of 

this AD. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 

special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. The examination is likely to 

make extensive use of specialized inspection 

techniques and/or equipment. Intricate 

cleaning and substantial access or 

disassembly procedure may be required.’’

Optional Terminating Action 

(l) For airplanes that are not specified in 

paragraph (g) of this AD: Installation of an 

NLG with new upper support anti-rotation 

lugs and new cylinder lugs, or installation of 

an NLG that was never driven by EMM BSCU 

standard L4.1 and L4.5; combined with 

installation of an EMM BSCU standard L4.8 

or a non-EMM BSCU; constitutes terminating 

action for the requirements of this AD. Do the 

installations in accordance with a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116; or the 

EASA (or its delegated agent). Chapter 32 of 

the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM) is one approved 

method for doing the installations. 

No Report Required 

(m) Although Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–32–1310, dated February 8, 2006, 

specifies sending certain inspection results to 

Airbus, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

Credit Paragraph 

(n) Inspections done before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with Chapter 

12, Subject 12–14–32 of the Airbus A318/ 

A319/A320/A321 AMM, as revised by Airbus 

A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Temporary 

Revision 12–001, dated November 13, 2005, 

are acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(o)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(p) EASA airworthiness directive 2006–

0174, dated June 21, 2006, also addresses the 

subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

26, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6343 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–07–025] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Wicomico River (North Prong), 

Salisbury MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operation 

regulations of two Maryland Department 

of Transportation (MDOT) bridges: The 

Main Street and U.S. 50 Bridges, at mile 

22.4, across Wicomico River (North 

Prong) in Salisbury, MD. This proposal 

would allow the bridges to open on 

signal if four hours advance notice is 

given and eliminate the continual 

attendance of draw tender services 

while still providing the reasonable 

needs of navigation. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, 

Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 

23704–5004. The Fifth Coast Guard 

District maintains the public docket for 

this rulemaking. Comments and 

material received from the public, as 

well as documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket, will become part of this docket 

and will be available for inspection or 

copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth 

Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 

Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, at (757) 398–6222. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking CGD05–07–025, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

a return receipt, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

submittals received during the comment 

period. We may change this proposed 

rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Commander 

(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the 

address under ADDRESSES explaining 

why one would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The State Highway Administration 

(SHA), a division under MDOT, is 

responsible for the operation of both the 

Main Street and US 50 Bridges, at mile 

22.4, across Wicomico River in 

Salisbury. SHA requested advance 

notification for vessel openings and a 

reduction in draw tender services due to 

the infrequency of requests for vessel 

openings of the drawbridges. 

The Main Street and US 50 Bridges 

have vertical clearances of four feet, 

above mean high water, in the closedto-navigation position. The existing 

operating regulations for these 

drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR 

§ 117.579, which requires the draws to 

open on signal, except from 7 a.m. to 9 

a.m., from 12 noon to 1 p.m. and from 

4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not be 

opened for the passage of vessels, except 

for tugs with tows, if at least three hours 

of advance notice is given, and the 

reason for passage through the bridges 

during a closure period is due to delay 

caused by inclement weather or other 

emergency or unforeseen circumstances. 

Bridge opening data supplied by SHA 

revealed a significant decrease in yearly 

openings. In the past three years from 

2004 to 2006, the bridges opened for 

vessels 522, 282 and 157 times, 

respectively. Due to the infrequency of 

requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridges, SHA requested to change 

the current operating regulations by 

requiring the draw spans to open on 

signal if at least four hours notice is 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS