Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21655 

Docket FAA–2014–0236. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 

2014. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08727 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0232; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–100–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

the Boeing Company Model DC–9–10, 

DC–9–20, DC–9–30, DC–9–40, and DC– 

9–50 series airplanes. This proposed AD 

was prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder (DAH) 

indicating that the bulkhead dome tees, 

which connect the bulkhead web to the 

fuselage, are subject to widespread 

fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed 

AD would require repetitive inspections 

of the improved ventral aft pressure 

bulkhead tees and replacement if 

necessary. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

bulkhead dome tees, which could result 

in reduced structural integrity and rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 2, 2014. 

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, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206– 

766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this referenced 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 by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0232; 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: Eric 

Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5348; 

fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

eric.schrieber@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– 

2014–0232; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–100–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-site 

damage 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 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 

structural 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. 

In the context of WFD, this action 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

timing of service information 

development (with FAA approval), 

while providing operators with certainty 

regarding the LOV applicable to their 

airplanes. 

This AD was prompted by an 

evaluation by the DAH indicating that 

the improved (shot-peened) ventral aft 

pressure bulkhead dome tees, which 

connect the bulkhead web to the 

fuselage, are subject to WFD. No new 

improved (shot-peened) tees have been 

found cracked to date, but it has been 

determined that these improved tees 

could crack before the airplane’s limit of 

validity is reached. This condition, if 

not corrected, could result in reduced 

structural integrity and rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed McDonnell Douglas 

Alert Service Bulletin A53–232, 

Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2014–0232. 

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. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information identified 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin A53–232, Revision 2, dated 

April 28, 1995, did not specify 

compliance times for inspections of the 

new improved (shot-peened) tees. We 

have determined that the compliance 

time specified in this proposed AD 

adequately addresses the unsafe 

condition. This difference has been 

coordinated with The Boeing Company. 

Although McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin A53–232, Revision 2, 

dated April 28, 1995, describes 

inspection procedures for the original 

design tees, the inspection procedures 

also apply to the improved (shotpeened) tees specified in this AD. 

Although McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin A53–232, Revision 2, 

dated April 28, 1995, notes that 

replacing all six aft pressure bulkhead 

tee sections with new improved tee 

sections terminates the repetitive 

inspection requirements, this proposed 

AD does not allow that terminating 

action because the new improved tee 

could crack before the airplane’s limit of 

validity is reached. 

Although Table 1 of Figure 4, and 

paragraph 3, ‘‘Material Information,’’ of 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service 

Bulletin A53–232, Revision 2, dated 

April 28, 1995, specify tee part numbers 

of SR09530056–3, SR09530056–5, 

SR09530056–6, SR09530056–7, 

SR09530056–8, SR09530056–9, 

5910163–387, 5910163–389, 5910163– 

391, 5910163–392, 5910163–393, or 

5910163–394, the complete lists of part 

numbers are listed in paragraphs (h) and 

(k) of this proposed AD. 

These differences have been 

coordinated with The Boeing Company. 

Related Rulemaking 

AD 96–16–04, Amendment 39–9704 

(61 FR 39860, July 31, 1996) requires 

repetitive inspections of the original tee 

in accordance with McDonnell Douglas 

Alert Service Bulletin A53–232, 

Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995, 

whether or not the original tee was 

replaced. AD 96–16–04 did not address 

WFD and, therefore, allowed 

replacement of the tee with a new 

improved tee as a terminating action for 

repetitive inspections. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

replacement specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

replaced before WFD develops in 

airplanes. Standard inspection 

techniques cannot be relied on to detect 

WFD before it becomes a hazard to 

flight. We will not grant any extensions 

of the compliance time to complete any 

AD-mandated service bulletin related to 

WFD without extensive new data that 

would substantiate and clearly warrant 

such an extension. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 48 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 148 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $12,580 per inspection cycle.

$0 Up to $12,580 per inspection 

cycle.

Up to $603,840 per inspection 

cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these replacements: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replacement ................................................................. 4,000 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340,000 ............. $26,000 $366,000 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21657 

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– 

2014–0232; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–100–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by June 2, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects certain requirements of AD 

96–16–04, Amendment 39–9704 (61 FR 

39860, July 31, 1996). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model DC–9–11, DC–9–12, DC–9–13, DC–9– 

14, DC–9–15, and DC–9–15F airplanes; 

Model DC–9–21 airplanes; Model DC–9–31, 

DC–9–32, DC–9–32 (VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC– 

9–33F, DC–9–34, DC–9–34F, and DC–9–32F 

(C–9A, C–9B) airplanes; Model DC–9–41 

airplanes; and Model DC–9–51 airplanes; 

certificated in any category; equipped with a 

ventral aft pressure bulkhead. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by 

the design approval holder (DAH) indicating 

that the improved (shot-peened) ventral aft 

pressure bulkhead dome tees, which connect 

the bulkhead web to the fuselage, are subject 

to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of the improved (shot-peened) 

ventral aft pressure bulkhead dome tees 

connecting the bulkhead web to the fuselage, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity and rapid decompression of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Definitions 

(1) For the purposes of this AD, the term 

‘‘original tee section’’ refers to the original 

(non-peened) ventral aft pressure bulkhead 

web to fuselage skin attach tee sections. 

(2) For the purposes of this AD, the term 

‘‘improved tee section’’ refers to improved 

(shot peened) ventral aft pressure bulkhead 

web to fuselage skin attach tee sections. 

(h) Inspections 

For airplanes on which an improved tee 

section having P/N 5910130–389, 5910130– 

391, 5910130–392, 5910130–393, 5910130– 

394, 5910130–387, SR09530001–19, 

SR09530001–21, SR09530001–22, 

SR09530001–23, SR09530001–24, 

SR09530001–25, SR09530001–35, 

SR09530001–29, SR09530001–30, 

SR09530001–31, SR09530001–32, 

SR09530001–33, SR09530056–3, 

SR09530056–5, SR09530056–6, 

SR09530056–7, SR09530056–8, 

SR09530056–9, SR09530056–19, 

SR09530056–21, SR09530056–22, 

SR09530056–23, SR09530056–24, or 

SR09530056–25, is installed: At the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) 

or (i)(2) of this AD, do general visual and low 

frequency eddy current inspections (Option 

I), or high and low frequency eddy current 

inspections (Option II), for cracking of the 

improved tee sections, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 

A53–232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995. 

(i) Compliance Times 

(1) For Option I and Option II inspections 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: If the 

time of installation of an improved tee 

section having a part number listed in 

paragraph (h) of this AD, is known, do the 

initial inspection required by paragraph (h) 

of this AD within 70,000 flight cycles after 

installation of the improved tee section, or 

within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(2) For Option I and Option II inspections 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: If the 

time of installation of an improved tee 

section having a part number listed in 

paragraph (h) of this AD, is not known, do 

the initial inspection required by paragraph 

(h) of this AD before the accumulation of 

105,000 total flight cycles on the airplane or 

within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(j) Repetitive Inspections 

If no cracking is found during the 

inspection required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph 

(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert 

Service Bulletin A53–232, Revision 2, dated 

April 28, 1995. 

(1) For Option I: If Option I was used for 

the inspection required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, repeat the inspections specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iii) of 

this AD at the intervals specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iii) of 

this AD. 

(i) Repeat the low frequency eddy current 

inspection for cracking of side areas above 

the floor between longerons L7 and L17 on 

the fuselage, at intervals not to exceed 1,500 

flight cycles. 

(ii) Repeat the general visual inspection for 

cracking of the top and lower areas from 

longeron L7 left side to longeron L7 right 

side, and lower fuselage longeron L17 to 

longeron L20 on the left and right sides, at 

intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles. 

(iii) Repeat the general visual inspection 

for cracking of the bottom areas from 

longeron L20 left side to longeron L20 right 

side, at intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight 

cycles. 

(2) For Option II: If Option II was used for 

the inspection required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, repeat the high and low frequency 

eddy current inspection for cracking around 

the entire periphery of the fuselage on the 

forward side of the bulkhead, at intervals not 

to exceed 2,500 flight cycles. 

(k) Corrective Actions and Post-Replacement 

Inspections 

If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (h) or (j) of 

this AD: Before further pressurized flight, 

replace each cracked tee section with an 

airworthy tee section having a part number 

listed in paragraph (h) of this AD, or with an 

original tee section having P/N 5910130–47, 

5910130–51, 5910130–53, 5910130–54, 

5910130–55, or 5910130–56, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin 

A53–232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) If the tee section is replaced with an 

improved tee section listed in paragraph (h) 

of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 

70,000 flight cycles after installation, inspect 

the tee section in accordance with paragraph 

(h) of this AD and do all applicable corrective 

actions and repetitive inspections in 

accordance with and at the times specified in 

paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD. 

(2) If the tee section is replaced with an 

original tee section listed in paragraph (k) of 

this AD, prior to the accumulation of 35,000 

flight cycles after installation, inspect the tee 

section in accordance with paragraph (h) of 

this AD and do all applicable corrective 

actions and repetitive inspections in 

accordance with and at the times specified in 

paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 

paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCREQUESTS@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, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: 562–627–5348; fax: 562–627– 

5210; email: eric.schrieber@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 

206–766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 

referenced 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 April 7, 

2014. 

John P. Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08730 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 120809321–3716–02] 

RIN 0648–BC26 

Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey 

Bay National Marine Sanctuaries 

Regulations on Introduced Species 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Re-opening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On March 18, 2013 (78 FR 

16622), NOAA proposed to prohibit the 

introduction of introduced species into 

the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones 

and Monterey Bay national marine 

sanctuaries (GFNMS and MBNMS, 

respectively). On March 27, 2014 (79 FR 

17073) NOAA proposed to amend the 

March 2013 proposed rule to allow 

GFNMS and MBNMS to authorize 

certain introduced species of shellfish 

from commercial mariculture projects in 

all state waters of the sanctuaries. The 

comment period on this amendment 

closed on April 11, 2014. In response to 

significant public interest in this 

amended proposed action, NOAA is reopening the public comment period 

until May 5, 2014. 

DATES: NOAA will accept public 

comments on the proposed rule 

published at 79 FR 17073 (March 27, 

2014) through May 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NOS–2012–0113, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2012- 

0113, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Dave Lott, Regional Operations 

Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 

Pacific Street, STE100F, Monterey, CA 

93940. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NOAA. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NOAA will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Lott, Regional Operations 

Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 

Pacific Street, STE100F, Monterey, CA 

93940. 831–647–1920. 

Dated: April 9, 2014. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08729 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

19 CFR Part 201 

Rules of General Application 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) proposes to amend 

provisions of its Rules of Practice and 

Procedure concerning national security 

information. The proposed amendments 

seek to ensure that the Commission’s 

procedures with respect to national 

security information are consistent with 

applicable authorities. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

written comments must be received by 

5:15 p.m. on June 16, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number MISC–043, 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: https://

edis.usitc.gov. Follow the instructions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS