25124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

should verification programs provide to 

DOE (i.e., test reports) and with what 

frequency? 

(iii) Should DOE require labs to be 

accredited to international standards 

such as International Organization for 

Standardization/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 

17025, or specifically accredited to 

perform DOE testing? Should labs that 

manufacturers use for verification 

testing be accredited by DOE? By an 

accreditation body like the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program? 

(iv) What conditions should DOE 

require for labs doing verification 

testing to ensure unbiased, consistent, 

and robust results? For example, should 

DOE require that all labs performing 

verification testing be calibrated with 

the same frequency, in order to ensure 

consistency across labs? Should all 

verification testing labs be required to 

participate in round robin testing? How 

should such round robin testing be 

conducted to ensure accurate and 

consistent lab results? 

Cost 

(i) Should verification testing be paid 

for by the manufacturer or private 

labeler? DOE requests comments 

regarding the cost burden placed on 

manufacturers for the above described 

verification testing. Please provide a 

detailed description of the costs and 

supporting information. 

c. DOE seeks comment on whether it 

should conduct its own random 

verification testing of products separate 

from any required manufacturer 

verification testing. If so, what 

conditions and criteria should govern 

DOE performed verification testing? 

(4) Waivers 

Under existing regulations in 10 CFR 

430.27, manufacturers have the option 

of seeking a waiver from the test 

procedure when a basic model contains 

a design characteristic that either 

prevents testing according to the 

prescribed test procedures or causes the 

test procedure to evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of the model’s true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. DOE is 

considering establishing a mandatory 

waiver requirement, which would 

obligate manufacturers to obtain a 

waiver in those instances where the test 

procedure does not evaluate the energy 

or water consumption characteristics in 

a representative manner or where the 

test procedure yields materially 

inaccurate comparative data. This 

requirement would apply whether the 

product consumes more energy or less 

energy than would be measured by the 

applicable test procedure. DOE requests 

comments on this concept. 

(5) Application of Regulations to 

Distinctive Products 

DOE has an interest in creating a 

consistent, uniform enforcement 

framework across industries, 

manufacturers and products. Deviations 

from this approach must be justified 

based on distinctive product 

characteristics. We are interested in 

comments on the following questions 

relating to products that may justify 

unique approaches to certification, 

verification, and enforcement: 

a. DOE understands some niche 

products or large commercial products 

are manufactured at very low quantities 

on a made-to-order basis. How should 

DOE’s testing requirements and 

procedures be applied to these 

products? For example, how should 

units of these products be selected for 

testing? 

b. Some products, such as electric 

motors, are distributed in commerce or 

imported into the U.S. as components of 

other products where the component 

product is not readily accessible. When 

products with regulated components are 

imported into the U.S., how can DOE 

best ensure that the components are 

compliant with U.S. regulations? 

Docket: For direct access to the docket 

to read background documents, or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

Procedural Requirements: Today’s 

regulatory action has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 

Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6299– 

6305; 6316. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Scott Blake Harris, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10894 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0437; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–130–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–200, –300, –400, 

and –500 Series 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 

Model 737–200, –300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of certain fuselage frames and 

stub beams, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD also 

provides for an optional repair, which 

would terminate the repetitive 

inspections. For airplanes on which a 

certain repair is done, this proposed AD 

would also require repetitive 

inspections for cracking of certain 

fuselage frames and stub beams, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD results from reports of the 

detection of fatigue cracks at certain 

frame sections, in addition to stub beam 

cracking, caused by high flight cycle 

stresses from both pressurization and 

maneuver loads. We are proposing this 

AD to detect and correct fatigue 

cracking of certain fuselage frames and 

stub beams and possible severed frames, 

which could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the frames. This reduced 

structural integrity can increase loading 

in the fuselage skin, which will 

accelerate skin crack growth and could 

result in rapid decompression of the 

fuselage. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25125 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1, fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0437; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–130–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received reports of fatigue 

cracks at certain frame sections, in 

addition to stub beam cracking. The 

fatigue cracking is caused by high flight 

cycle stresses from both pressurization 

and maneuver loads. Reduced structural 

integrity of the frames can increase 

loading in the fuselage skin, which will 

accelerate skin crack growth and could 

result in rapid decompression of the 

fuselage. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, Revision 

1, dated July 9, 2009. The service 

bulletin describes procedures for, 

among other actions, repetitive detailed 

inspections for cracks in the body 

station (BS) 616 and BS 639 frame webs, 

inner chord, and outer chord, and the 

stub beam, and corrective actions if 

necessary. The corrective actions 

include repair of any cracking before 

further flight. The procedures also 

recommend contacting Boeing for repair 

instructions for certain cracking and 

repairing before further flight. 

As an option to the detailed 

inspection, the service bulletin 

describes procedures for a high 

frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspection for cracks in the same areas, 

and repair of any crack found. The 

service bulletin also describes 

procedures for doing a detailed 

inspection of the inner chord along the 

length of the repair and around the 

fastener heads if a repair or preventative 

modification exists on the inner chord 

below the floor that prevents the 

accomplishment of the detailed or HFEC 

inspection in that area. 

For airplanes on which a certain 

repair is done, the service bulletin 

describes procedures for repetitive 

detailed or HFEC inspections for 

cracking of the replacement frame 

section (frame webs, inner chord, and 

outer chord), and contacting Boeing for 

repair instructions if any crack is found, 

and repairing before further flight. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all relevant information and 

determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 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 Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, Revision 

1, dated July 9, 2009.’’ 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1254, Revision 1, Dated July 9, 2009 

Although the service bulletin 

specifies economic inspections and 

repairs of BS 597 and BS 601 frames, 

this proposed AD would not require 

those inspections and repairs. 

Although the service bulletin does not 

address accomplishing the inspections 

for airplanes on which fewer than 

15,000 total flight cycles have been 

accumulated, this proposed AD would 

require the inspections on those 

airplanes. 

The service bulletin specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on repairing cracks, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

cracks in one of the following ways: 

• Using 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) that 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 635 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The following table provides 

the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Average labor 

rate per hour Cost per product 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

BS 616 and BS 639 inspection/lower 

frame and stub beam.

15 $85 $1,275, per inspection cycle.635 $809,625 per inspection cycle. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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), 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. 

You can find our regulatory 

evaluation and the estimated costs of 

compliance 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 adding 

the following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2010–0437; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

NM–130–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by June 21, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to The Boeing 

Company Model 737–200, –300, –400, and 

–500 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, Revision 1, 

dated July 9, 2009. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from the detection of 

fatigue cracks at certain frame sections, in 

addition to stub beam cracking, caused by 

high flight cycle stresses from both 

pressurization and maneuver loads. The 

Federal Aviation Administration is issuing 

this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking 

of certain fuselage frames and stub beams 

and possible severed frames, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity of the 

frames. This reduced structural integrity can 

increase loading in the fuselage skin, which 

will accelerate skin crack growth and could 

result in rapid decompression of the fuselage. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Repetitive Inspections and Corrective 

Actions 

(g) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: 

Do a detailed or high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspection for cracking of body 

station (BS) 616 and BS 639 frame webs, 

inner chord, and outer chord, and the stub 

beams; and do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions; by 

accomplishing all the actions specified in 

Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, 

Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, except as 

specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. 

Do all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles since 

accomplishing the detailed inspection or at 

intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles 

since accomplishing the HFEC inspection, as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes on which no inspection 

of the BS 616 and BS 639 frames specified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1254, dated February 17, 2005, has been 

done as of the effective date of this AD, and 

that have accumulated fewer than 55,000 

total flight cycles as of the effective date of 

this AD: Inspect within 3,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, or before 

the accumulation of 56,500 total flight cycles, 

whichever occurs first. 

(2) For airplanes on which no inspection 

of the BS 616 and BS 639 frames specified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1254, dated February 17, 2005, has been 

done as of the effective date of this AD, and 

that have accumulated 55,000 or more total 

flight cycles as of the effective date of this 

AD: Inspect within 1,500 flight cycles after 

the effective date of this AD. 

(3) For airplanes on which a detailed or 

HFEC inspection of the BS 616 and BS 639 

frames, specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1254, dated February 17, 

2005, has been done as of the effective date 

of this AD: Inspect at the later of the times 

specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii) 

of this AD. 

(i) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(ii) Within 4,500 flight cycles after the 

previous inspection done in accordance with 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, 

dated February 17, 2005. 

Post-Repair Repetitive Inspections and 

Corrective Actions 

(h) For airplanes on which the repair 

specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, 

has been done: At the applicable time 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of 

this AD, do a detailed or HFEC inspection for 

cracking of the replacement frame section 

(frame webs, inner chord, and outer chord); 

and do all applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions; by accomplishing all 

the actions specified in Part 1 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, Revision 1, 

dated July 9, 2009, except as specified in 

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles since 

accomplishing the detailed inspection or at 

intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles 

since accomplishing the HFEC inspection, as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes on which a partial frame 

splice repair at BS 616 or BS 639 has been 

done, and the inner chord and web have been 

cold-worked: Inspect within 44,000 flight 

cycles after the repair has been done. 

(2) For airplanes on which a partial frame 

splice repair at BS 616 or BS 639 has been 

done, and the inner chord and web have not 

been cold-worked: Inspect within 29,000 

flight cycles after that repair has been done. 

Alternative Inspection of Repaired or 

Modified Area 

(i) For airplanes on which a repair or 

preventative modification exists on the inner 

chord below the floor which prevents the 

accomplishment of the detailed or HFEC 

inspection in that area as required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD: In lieu of inspecting 

that area, do a detailed inspection of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25127 

inner chord along the length of the repair and 

around the fastener heads in accordance with 

Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, 

Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009. 

Exceptions to Service Information 

(j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, 

specifies to contact Boeing for repair 

instructions and repair: Before further flight, 

repair the cracking using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(k) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–53A1254, Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, 

specifies to submit information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

Terminating Action 

(l) Doing the repair specified in Part 4 of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1254, 

Revision 1, dated July 9, 2009, terminates the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired 

frame only. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(m)(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. Send information to ATTN: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 917–6447; fax (425) 

917–6590. Or, e-mail information to 9–ANM– 

Seattle-ACO–AMOC–Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(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 an 

Authorized Representative for 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 

2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10902 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 110, 119, 121, 129, and 

135 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0140; Notice No. 10– 

07] 

RIN 2120–AJ45 

Operations Specifications 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

clarify and standardize the rules for 

applications by foreign air carriers and 

foreign persons for operations 

specifications and establish new 

standards for amendment, suspension or 

termination of those operations 

specifications. The proposed rule would 

also apply to foreign persons operating 

U.S.-registered aircraft in common 

carriage solely outside the United 

States. This action is necessary to 

update the process for issuing 

operations specifications, and it will 

establish a regulatory basis for current 

practices, such as amending, 

terminating or suspending operations 

specifications. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before August 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2009–0140 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket, or, go to the 

Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of 

the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darcy D. Reed, International Programs 

and Policy Division, AFS–50, Flight 

Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; email: darcy.d.reed@faa.gov; Telephone: 

202–385–8078. For legal questions 

concerning this proposed rule contact 

Lorna John, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Regulations Division, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; e-mail: 

Lorna.John@faa.gov; telephone: 202– 

267–3921. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Additional Information section of this 

preamble, you will find a discussion of 

how you can comment on this proposal 

and how the agency will handle your 

comments. Included in this discussion 

is related information about the docket, 

privacy, and handling proprietary or 

confidential business information. 

There is also a discussion on how you 

can get a copy of related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 

United States Code. 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. 

This proposed rule is issued under 

the authority described in Title 49 of the 

United States Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart III, Section 44701(a)(5). Under 

that section, the Administrator is 

charged with promoting safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS