Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 31233 

repaired in accordance with Sikorsky 

Overhaul and Repair Instruction (ORI) No. 

76350–065, Revision A through Revision E, 

certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as an 

unsecured MGB lower housing jet bore liner. 

This condition may cause the liner to move 

out of place, allowing oil to leak from the 

MGB, resulting in MGB failure and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 1, 

2014. 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Action 

(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), 

and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 

hours TIS, inspect each MGB lower housing 

jet bore (jet bore), as depicted in Figures 3 

and 4 of Sikorsky S–76 Alert Service Bulletin 

76–66–50, Basic Issue, dated January 14, 

2013 (ASB 76–66–50), for liner protrusion or 

movement, paint or caulk blistering, or oil 

leakage. 

(i) If there is any liner protrusion or 

movement, before further flight, replace the 

MGB with an MGB that has not been repaired 

in accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350– 

065, Revision A through Revision E, unless 

it has been subsequently repaired in 

accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350– 

065, Revision F, dated May 10, 2012. 

(ii) If there is any oil leakage or paint or 

caulk blistering, inspect the jet bore for liner 

protrusion and perform a leakage check by 

following the Accomplishment Instructions, 

Paragraphs 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(6)(a), of ASB 

76–66–50. 

(iii) If any moisture or droplets of MGB oil 

are visible on a jet bore after accomplishing 

the leakage check specified in paragraph 

3.C.(6)(a) of ASB 76–66–50, repeat 

paragraphs 3.C(4) through 3.C(6) of ASB 76– 

66–50. If any moisture or droplets of MGB oil 

are still visible, before further flight, replace 

the MGB with an MGB that has not been 

repaired in accordance with Sikorsky ORI 

No. 76350–065, Revision A through Revision 

E, unless it has been subsequently repaired 

in accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350– 

065, Revision F. 

(2) Within 1500 hours TIS, replace the 

MGB with an MGB that has not been repaired 

in accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350– 

065, Revision A through Revision E, unless 

it has been subsequently repaired in 

accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350– 

065, Revision F. This is terminating action 

for the repetitive inspections required by this 

AD. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Jeffrey Lee, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 

01803; telephone (781) 238–7161; email 

jeffrey.lee@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(h) Additional Information 

Sikorsky Overhaul and Repair Instruction 

No. 76350–065, Revision F, dated May 10, 

2012, which is not incorporated by reference, 

contains additional information about the 

subject of this AD. You may review copies of 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(817) 222–5110. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6320: Main Rotor Gearbox. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 21, 

2014. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12738 Filed 5–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0337; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–029–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Various 

Restricted Category Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2012–14– 

11 for Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. 

(AFE), Rotorcraft Development 

Corporation (RDC), and San Joaquin 

Helicopters (SJH) Model OH–58A, OH– 

58A+, and OH–58C helicopters. AD 

2012–14–11 currently requires 

inspecting the main rotor mast (mast) 

for a crack. Since we issued AD 2012– 

14–11, we have determined that the area 

of the mast requiring inspection should 

be expanded and repetitive inspections 

of the mast should be accomplished. 

This proposed AD would expand the 

area of the mast that requires an 

inspection for a crack and would require 

repetitive inspections of the mast. The 

proposed actions are intended to 

prevent failure of the mast and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

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

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712; telephone (562) 627–5228; email 

john.cecil@faa.gov; or Roger Caldwell, 

Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, 26805 East 

68th Ave., Room 214, Denver, CO 

80249; telephone (303) 342–1086; email 

roger.caldwell@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

On July 5, 2012, we issued AD 2012– 

14–11, amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 

42971, July 23, 2012) for AFE, RDC, and 

SJH Model OH–58A, OH–58A+, and 

OH–58C helicopters. AD 2012–14–11 

requires overhauling the mast and 

performing magnetic particle, 

fluorescent penetrant, and visual 

inspections for a crack, pitting, or 

corrosion in the threaded area of the 

mast and associated parts. If there is a 

crack, pitting, or corrosion, AD 2012– 

14–11 requires replacing the mast with 

an airworthy mast and reporting any 

crack, pitting, or corrosion found during 

the inspections. AD 2012–14–11 was 

prompted by two mast failures, one on 

an OH–58A+ and one on an OH–58C 

helicopter, both used in agricultural 

spraying operations. Investigation 

revealed that the mast failures were 

caused by fatigue cracking, which 

initiated from corrosion pitting found in 

or adjacent to the threaded section of 

the mast approximately 45 inches from 

the top of the mast. The actions of AD 

2012–14–11 were intended to prevent 

failure of the mast and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

Comments 

After we issued AD 2012–14–11, 

amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 42971, 

July 23, 2012), we received comments 

from two commenters. 

Request 

RDC requested that we change the 

applicability of AD 2012–14–11, 

amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 42971, 

July 23, 2012), to include Bell Model 

206A and 206B helicopters, stating that 

these models have an identical 

configuration and could be susceptible 

to the same corrosion and fatigue 

cracking as the OH–58. We do not agree. 

A number of hardware components on 

the Bell Model 206A and 206B 

helicopter masts including the seals, 

packing, and shims are not identical to 

components used on the OH–58. These 

differences are sufficient to exclude the 

Bell Model 206A and 206B helicopters 

from the applicability of this AD. 

RDC also requested that the use of 

Grade 1 corrosion preventative 

compound (CPC) be allowed as it 

provides better protection and more 

adequate sealing of the mast and locking 

plate, and it is used on similar 

structures on the Bell Model 206A and 

206B helicopters. We agree with this 

comment. The proposed AD does not 

specify the use of any particular CPC, 

and therefore operators may comply 

using any compound and method as 

long as all work is done as prescribed 

in the manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness, or using other methods 

acceptable to the FAA. 

RDC further recommended installing 

the lock bead over a seal of 8802 Type 

B (ProSeal) sealant and applying a bead 

on top of the joint to enhance seal 

properties and prevent corrosion. We 

agree with this comment. The proposed 

AD does not specify the use of any 

particular sealant or prohibit 

application of an extra bead of sealant. 

Operators may comply as long as all 

work is done as prescribed in the 

manufacturer’s maintenance manual or 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness, or using other methods 

acceptable to the FAA. 

RDC also emphasized that keeping the 

mast support drain holes unobstructed 

and prohibiting pressure washing in the 

area around the support would 

minimize the amount of water intrusion 

inside the support around the mast seal 

area. We partially agree with this 

comment. While it is important to 

emphasize that the mast drain holes 

remain unobstructed and that pressure 

washing of the mast support area should 

be minimized, we do not agree that 

these concerns should be mandated by 

the proposed AD. 

RDC further requested that the 

overhaul interval of the masts should be 

reduced from 2,400 hours time-in 

service (TIS) to 1,200 hours TIS. We 

agree. The proposed AD includes a 

requirement to overhaul and inspect the 

mast at intervals not exceeding 1,200 

hours TIS or 3 years, whichever occurs 

earlier. 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) commented in support of 

the required inspection of the threaded 

area of the mast for a crack, pitting, or 

corrosion, but requested that the area 

adjacent to the threaded area (identified 

in AD 2012–14–11 as ‘‘area J’’) be added 

to the visual inspection requirements of 

the proposed AD. The NTSB states that 

a prior accident investigation revealed 

the mast had fractured in this section. 

We agree with this comment. Although 

AD 2012–14–11 does contain a 

requirement for magnetic particle 

inspecting the entire mast for a crack, 

we have included the expanded area in 

the visual inspection requirements in 

the proposed AD. 

Actions Since AD 2012–14–11 Was 

Issued 

Since we issued AD 2012–14–11, 

amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 42971, 

July 23, 2012) we have determined that 

visually inspecting the area of the mast 

adjacent to the threaded portion should 

be included in the overhaul and that the 

inspection should be repetitive. We 

have also determined that reporting the 

findings of any inspection required by 

AD 2012–14–11 is unnecessary, and 

have removed this requirement from the 

proposed AD. Lastly, we have revised 

the order of the inspections so that 

removing any surface corrosion and 

performing the visual inspection are 

completed prior to the magnetic particle 

inspection. 

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 these same 

type designs. 

Related Service Information 

AFE issued Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB): 2012–58–01, Revision 1, dated 

February 20, 2012 (ASB 2012–58–01), 

which specifies overhauling and 

inspecting the mast for any cracks, 

pitting, or corrosion by following the 

procedures in the United States Army 

Aviation Unit and Intermediate 

Maintenance Manual TM55–1520–228– 

23. ASB 2012–58–01 further specifies 

replacing any mast with a crack, pitting, 

or corrosion beyond surface rust that is 

removed with a wire brush or steel wool 

in the threaded portion of the mast. 

RDC has issued ASB No. OH–58–13– 

01, dated January 30, 2013 (OH–58–13– 

01), which describes additional 

procedures for inspecting the mast and 

establishes an overhaul interval of 1,200 

hours TIS or 3 years, whichever occurs 

first. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would retain the 

mast inspection and overhaul 

requirements of AD 2012–14–11, 

amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 42971, 

July 23, 2012), and would: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 31235 

• Change the compliance time for the 

inspection from within 30 days to 

within 90 days (unless accomplished 

previously within the last 12 months); 

• Require repeating the inspection 

every 1,200 hours TIS or 3 years, 

whichever occurs earlier; 

• Require inspecting, with a 10X or 

higher magnifying glass, the area 

adjacent to the threaded area of the mast 

for a crack or corrosion pitting; and 

• Remove the reporting requirement 

of AD 2012–14–11. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

Service Information 

The service information does not 

apply to SJH helicopters. Those 

helicopters are included in this AD 

because they have the same mast design 

and are operated similarly to the AFE 

and RDC fleets. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 80 helicopters of U.S. 

Registry, and that operators may incur 

the following costs in order to comply 

with this AD. At an average labor rate 

of $85 per hour, inspecting the mast 

would require about 20 work hours, for 

a total cost of $1,700 per helicopter, and 

a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of 

$136,000. Replacing a cracked main 

rotor mast would require about 20 work 

hours, and required parts would cost 

about $11,891 for a total cost per 

helicopter of $13,591. 

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 proposed 

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, 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 to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; 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. 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

2012–14–11, Amendment 39–17125 (77 

FR 42971, July 23, 2012), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Various Restricted Category Helicopters: 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0337; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–029–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Arrow Falcon 

Exporters, Inc. (AFE), Rotorcraft 

Development Corporation (RDC) (formerly 

Garlick Helicopter Corporation, and Garlick 

Helicopter, Inc.), and San Joaquin 

Helicopters (SJH) Model OH–58A, OH–58A+, 

and OH–58C helicopters, certificated in any 

category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in the main rotor mast, which could 

result in failure of the mast and subsequent 

loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Affected AD 

This AD supersedes AD 2012–14–11, 

Amendment 39–17125 (77 FR 42971, July 23, 

2012). 

(d) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 1, 

2014. 

(e) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(f) Required Actions 

(1) Within 90 days, unless accomplished 

previously within the last 12 months, and 

thereafter at intervals not exceeding 1,200 

hours TIS or 3 years, whichever occurs 

earlier: 

(i) Remove any surface rust with a wire 

brush or steel wool and, using a 10X or 

higher power magnifying glass, inspect the 

areas of the mast as shown in area E and area 

J of Figure 1 to Paragraph (f) of this AD for 

pitting, corrosion, or a crack. 

(ii) Overhaul the main rotor mast assembly 

and magnetic particle inspect the mast; mast 

bearing nut; plate, mast and seal; and bearing 

liner for a crack. 

(iii) Fluorescent penetrant inspect the 

locking plate for a crack. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31236 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(2) If there is a crack, pitting, or corrosion, 

before further flight, replace the mast with an 

airworthy mast. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) For AFE and SJH helicopters, the 

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: John Cecil, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount 

Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone (562) 

627–5228; email john.cecil@faa.gov. 

(2) For RDC helicopters, the Manager, 

Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 

may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your 

proposal to: Roger Caldwell, Aerospace 

Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Room 

214, Denver, CO 80249; telephone (303) 342– 

1086; email roger.caldwell@faa.gov. 

(3) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(h) Additional Information 

(1) Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc., Alert 

Service Bulletin: 2012–58–01, Revision 1, 

dated February 20, 2012, which is not 

incorporated by reference, contains more 

information about the subject of this AD. For 

Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc., 2081 South 

Wildcat Way, Porterville, CA 93257; 

telephone (559) 781–8604; fax (559) 781– 

9271; email afe@arrowfalcon.com. 

(2) Rotorcraft Development Corporation 

Alert Service Bulletin No. OH58–13–01, 

dated January 30, 2013, which is not 

incorporated by reference, contains more 

information about the subject of this AD. For 

Rotorcraft Development Corporation service 

information, contact Rotorcraft Development 

Corporation, PO Box 430, 1004 Eastside 

Highway, Corvallis, MT 59828; telephone 

(406) 961–4100; fax (406) 961–4101; or at 

http://www.rotorcraftdevelopment.com. 

(3) United States Army Technical Manual 

Aviation Unit and Intermediate Maintenance 

Manual Army Model OH–58A and OH–58C 

Helicopters, TM 55–1520–228–23–1, which 

is not incorporated by reference, contains 

more information about the subject of this 

AD. For United States Army service 

information, contact Commander, U.S. Army 

Aviation and Missile Command, ATTN: 

AMSAM–MMA–NP, Redstone Arsenal, AL 

35898–5000, telephone (256) 876–4044; or at 

https://www.logsa.army.mil/etmpdf/files/

030000/035016.pdf. 

(4) You may review the service information 

at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6300: Main Rotor Drive. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 21, 

2014. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12737 Filed 5–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0441; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–ASO–11] 

Proposed Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Pine Knot, KY 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish Class E airspace at Pine Knot, 

KY, to accommodate a new Area 

Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning 

System (GPS) Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedure (SIAP) serving 

McCreary County Airport. This action 

would enhance the safety and airspace 

management of Instrument Flight Rules 

(IFR) operations within the National 

Airspace System. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule 

to: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647– 

5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must 

identify the Docket Number FAA–2013– 

0441; Airspace Docket No. 13–ASO–11, 

at the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit and review received 

comments through the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02JN14.000</GPH>