Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49975 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Colombia containing an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit 

originated from a place of production 

free of C. capitata within the low 

prevalence area of Bogota Savannah and 

the neighboring municipalities above 

2,200 meters of elevation in the 

Departments of Boyaca ́ and 

Cundinamarca and was produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 319.56–60. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19959 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–BT–PET–0043] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Landmark Legal 

Foundation; Petition for 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration; 

Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the 

Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF), 

requesting that DOE reconsider its final 

rule of Energy Conservation Standards 

for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens, Docket No. EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0048, RIN 1904–AC07, 

78 FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) 

(‘‘Microwave Final Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). 

Specifically, LLF requests that DOE 

reconsider the Rule because the final 

rule used a different Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC) than the figure used in the 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR). DOE seeks 

comment on whether to undertake the 

reconsideration suggested in the 

petition. 

DATES: Any comments must be received 

by DOE not later than September 16, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted, identified by docket number 

EERE–BT–PET–0043, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

LLFPetition2013PET0043@ee.doe.gov. 

Include either the docket number EERE– 

BT–PET–0043, and/or ‘‘LLF Petition’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Room 1J–018, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Please submit one signed original 

paper copy. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Room 

1J–018, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

5. Instructions: All submissions 

received must include the agency name 

and docket number for this proceeding. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

electronic copies of the Petition are 

available online at DOE’s Web site at the 

following URL address: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-PET0043. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

6590, or email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Ari 

Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4224, 

email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other 

things that, ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an 

interested person the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(e). DOE received 

a petition from the Landmark Legal 

Foundation (LLF) on July 2, 2013, 

requesting that DOE reconsider its final 

rule of Energy Conservation Standards 

for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens, Docket No. EERE 

2011 BT STD 0048, RIN 1904 AC07, 78 

FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) (‘‘Microwave 

Final Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). 

The Rule was adopted by DOE in 

accordance with the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). (78 

FR 36316) EPCA, as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment. On June 17, 2013, 

DOE published a final rule adopting 

standby mode and off mode standards, 

which it determined would result in 

significant conservation of energy and 

were technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

In developing the Rule, DOE issued a 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNOPR) on February 14, 

2012. (77 FR 8555) In this SNOPR, as 

part of its economic analysis of the 

proposed rule, DOE sought to monetize 

the cost savings associated with the 

reduced carbon missions that would 

result from the expected energy savings 

of the proposed rule. To do this, DOE 

used ‘‘the most recent values [of SCC] 

identified by the interagency process,’’ 

which, at the time, was the SCC 

calculation developed by the 

‘‘Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon 2010.’’ Id. This 2010 

figure was developed through an 

interagency process in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

In May 2013, subsequent to the 

SNOPR but prior to DOE’s issuance of 

the Rule, the Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon released 

revised SCC values. (Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon, United States Government, 

2013) As these were ‘‘the most recent 

(2013) SCC values from the interagency 

group,’’ DOE included these revised 

SCC values in the Rule. (78 FR 36316) 

Landmark petitions DOE to reconsider 

the Rule on the grounds that this change 

in the values used in estimating the 

economic benefits of the Rule should 

have been subject to a prior opportunity 

for public comment because the 2013 

SCC values were not the ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the 2010 SCC values. 

Further, Landmark asserts that without 

reconsideration of the Rule, DOE might 

now rely on its prior use of the 2013 

SCC values in the Rule when it 

endeavors to enact new energy 

conservation standards in the future. 

In promulgating this petition for 

public comment, DOE seeks public 

comment on whether to undertake the 

reconsideration suggested in the 

petition. DOE takes no position at this 

time on the merits of the suggested 

reconsideration. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

Set forth below is the full text of the 

Landmark Legal Foundation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49976 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048 

RIN 1904–AC07 

In the Matter of Energy Conservation 

Program: Energy Conservation Standards For 

Standby Mode and Off Mode for Microwave 

Ovens 

Petition for Reconsideration 

Landmark Legal Foundation 

(‘‘Landmark’’) respectfully petitions the 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or 

‘‘Department’’) for reconsideration of its 

final rule on Energy Conservation 

Standards for Standby Mode and Off 

Mode for Microwave Ovens, Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048, RIN 1904– 

AC07, 78 FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) 

(‘‘Microwave Final Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). 

President Barrack Obama has directed 

the issuance of sweeping new 

environmental regulations on carbon 

emissions from multiple sources. See 

Raf Sanchez, ‘‘Barrack Obama to cut 

emissions in vow to save planet,’’ The 

Telegraph, June 26, 2013, (http:// 

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ 

n01thamerica/usa/l0142279/BarackObama-to-cut-emissions-in-vow-to-saveplanet.html). These new regulations will 

be applied to sources ranging from small 

appliances to both new and existing 

power plants. See Justin Sink, ‘‘Obama 

mocks skeptics of climate change as 

‘flat-Earth society,’ ’’ The Hill, June 25, 

2013, (http://thehill.com/blogslblogbriefing-room/news/307655-obama-wedont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-theflat-earth-society#ixzz2XFsQ5mgH). 

Each of the new and massive 

regulatory proposals directed at carbon 

emission sources will require 

implementing agencies to conduct 

‘‘cost-benefit’’ analysis upon which the 

public should be able to make comment. 

DOE’s unannounced, dramatically 

increased, and improperly altered 

‘‘Social Cost of Carbon’’ (‘‘SCC’’) 

valuation presented for the first time in 

this microwave oven regulation will 

certainly become the standard by which 

all other agencies will place a 

purportedly beneficial economic value 

on new carbon regulations. 

Landmark objects to the Department’s 

(and unnamed other agencies) decision 

to utilize an ‘‘Interagency Update’’ to 

justify increasing the ‘‘social cost’’ of 

carbon dioxide without any opportunity 

for public comment. Finalizing such a 

far reaching decision without notice and 

public comment violates the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) 

and Executive Order 13563’s tenets of 

transparency, objectivity and fairness in 

promulgating and finalizing regulations. 

Landmark submits this document as a 

Petition for Reconsideration. However, 

the egregious violations of the APA as 

documented in this Petition demand 

rescission of the Rule. Landmark 

respectfully requests the DOE halt 

implementation and begin the 

regulatory process anew. At a minimum, 

the DOE’s action must be reconsidered 

and presented to the public for proper 

consideration and comment. Without 

public input on DOE’s SCC calculation, 

the agency will utterly fail to adhere to 

its obligations for transparency under 

the APA and its duty to comply with the 

Obama Administration’s declared 

commitment to meaningful public 

participation. DOE should immediately 

suspend implementation of this 

regulation, place it on the public docket 

and permit comments on the 

Department’s decision to utilize a new 

and previously unknown ‘‘interagency 

update’’ for calculating the values used 

to quantify the ‘‘Social Cost of Carbon’’ 

or ‘‘SCC.’’ 

Background 

On June 17, 2013, pursuant to the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act and 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act, (‘‘EPCA’’ and ‘‘EISA 2007,’’ 

respectively) DOE promulgated a final 

rule establishing ‘‘energy conservation 

standards’’ for microwave ovens. 78 FR 

36316. 

The final rule uses a new valuation 

for SCC that is different from—and 

dramatically higher than—that used in 

the proposed rule during the notice and 

comment period. See, 77 FR 8555 

(Energy Conservation Standards for 

Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens, Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and public 

meeting, Feb. 14, 2012). This new 

valuation appears in Table IV–14 of the 

new rule and, apparently, is derived 

from the ‘‘2013 Interagency Update, 

2010–2050.’’ 78 FR 36351. The new 

value is important because it serves as 

a key data factor in all cost-benefit 

analyses performed involving carbon 

dioxide. Despite its curious and 

surreptitious integration into a rule 

pertaining to microwave ovens, this new 

estimate appears to apply to all federal 

agencies engaging in cost-benefit 

analyses involving carbon dioxide 

emissions. DOE states, ‘‘the purpose of 

the SCC estimates presented here is to 

allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

C02 emissions into cost benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions. . . .’’ 78 FR at 

36349 (emphasis added). 

While the final rule utilizes an 

‘‘interagency update’’ for establishing 

SCC values, the proposed rule does not 

contain these updated figures. See 78 FR 

36351 and 77 FR 8555, respectively. 

Instead, the proposed rule provides SCC 

values derived ‘‘from three integrated 

assessment models.’’ 77 FR 8555. There 

is significant deviation in SCC estimates 

from the models used in the proposed 

rule to the models used in the final rule. 

For example, in the proposed rule, the 

Social Cost of Carbon, under one 

discount rate is estimated to be $23.80 

dollars per metric ton by 2015. 77 FR 

8555. That number rises to $38 dollars 

per metric ton under the new estimates 

provided in the final rule. 78 FR 36351. 

It appears these new figures were 

inserted into the existing rule without 

any opportunity for public comment on 

their efficacy. Such new values will 

dramatically affect cost-benefit analyses. 

Any federal rule limiting carbon dioxide 

emissions will now appear considerably 

more valuable than under previous 

analyses. 

DOE acknowledges that any effort to 

‘‘quantify and monetize the harms 

associated with climate change’’ raises 

‘‘serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics . . .’’ 78 FR at 

36349. It also reports that it arrived at 

these estimates ‘‘as part of [an] 

interagency process ‘‘where numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis . . .’’ Id. 

However, there is no indication that 

DOE, or any other governmental entity, 

sought specific comments from the 

public on its new estimates. DOE states 

that preliminary assessments that 

established ‘‘interim values’’ for the SCC 

were subject to the traditional notice 

and comment procedures, ‘‘the results 

of this preliminary effort were presented 

in several proposed and final rules.’’ Id. 

Yet, DOE has not made these new 

estimates available for public comment. 

Instead, DOE, along with a number of 

other federal agencies, arrived at these 

new figures through some sort of 

‘‘interagency process’’ and published 

them in a final regulation on microwave 

oven power modes. 

Argument 

A. DOE Violated the Administrative 

Procedure Act by Failing To Allow the 

Public the Opportunity To Comment on 

its New Values on the Social Costs of 

Carbon 

The DOE’s effort to cloak its actions 

by dubiously inserting a crucial costbenefit metric into a rule pertaining to 

microwave oven standards does not 

withstand scrutiny under the APA. It 

appears that DOE inserted its new SCC 

estimates into the regulation without 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49977 

first publishing these estimates in a 

format allowing for public comment. 

Unilaterally establishing a wide ranging 

metric that will be used in all costbenefit analyses for regulation of 

greenhouse gases violates the 

fundamental principles of the APA and 

would not survive judicial scrutiny. 

The APA mandates that an agency 

‘‘shall give interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments with 

or without opportunity for oral 

presentation.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(c). The 

purpose of a robust comment period ‘‘is 

to allow interested members of the 

public to communicate information, 

concerns, and criticisms to an agency 

during rulemaking process.’’ 

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. 

Nuclear Regulatory Com., 673 F.2d 525, 

530 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Such a period 

allows ‘‘the agency to benefit from the 

experience and input of the parties who 

file comments . . . and to see to it that 

the agency maintains a flexible and 

open-minded attitude towards its own 

rules.’’ National Tour Brokers Ass’n v. 

United States, 591 F.2d 896, 902 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978). 

Therefore, the notice and comment 

period ‘‘encourages public participation 

in the administrative process and 

educates the agency, thereby helping to 

ensure informed agency 

decisionmaking.’’ Chocolate 

Manufacturers Assoc. v. Block, 755 F.2d 

1098, 1103 (4th Cir. 1985), (citing 

Spartan Radiocasting Co. v. FCC, 619 

F.2d 314, 321 (4th Cir. 1980)); BASF 

Wyandotte Corp. v. Castle, 598 F.2d 

637, 642 (1st Cir. 1979)). Providing 

adequate notice of a significant change 

in a proposed rule gives ‘‘the public the 

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. It also enables the 

agency promulgating the rule to educate 

itself before establishing rules and 

procedures which have a substantial 

impact on those regulated.’’ Texaco, Inc. 

v. Federal Power Commission, 412 F.2d 

740, 744 (3’d Cir. 1969). When an 

agency fails to properly adhere to the 

APA’s notice and comment procedures 

‘‘interested parties will not be able to 

comment meaningfully on the agency’s 

proposals.’’ 

Connecticut Light & Power, 673 F.2d 

at 530. Moreover, ‘‘the agency may 

operate with a one-sided or mistaken 

picture of the issues at stake in a rulemaking.’’ Id. Finally, where, as here, an 

agency has made a fundamental change 

in a critical component of its analysis, 

the agency has a duty to inform the 

public. 

‘‘[H]iding or disguising the information 

that it employs is to condone a practice in 

which the agency treats what should be 

genuine interchange as mere bureaucratic 

sport. An agency commits serious procedural 

error when it fails to reveal portions of the 

technical basis for a proposed rule in time to 

allow meaningful commentary.’’ 

Connecticut Light & Power, 673 F.2d at 

530–531. 

Thus, a proper notice and comment 

period improves the ‘‘quality of agency 

rulemaking by testing proposed rules 

through exposure to public comments. 

Second, the notice requirements provide 

an opportunity to be heard, which is 

basic to fundamental fairness. Third, 

notice and comment allows affected 

parties to develop a record of objections 

for judicial review.’’ United Church Bd. 

For World Ministries v. SEC, 617 

F.Supp. 837, 839 (D.C. Dist. 1985), citing 

Small Refined Lead Phase-Down Task 

Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C. 

Cir. 1983). 

Finally, an agency ‘‘is required to 

renotice [its proposed rule] when the 

changes [to that rule] are so major that 

the original notice did not adequately 

frame the subjects for discussion.’’ 

Connecticut Light & Power, 673 F.2d at 

533. If the agency’s changes are a logical 

outgrowth of the proposed rule, ‘‘the 

agency need not renotice [such] 

changes.’’ Id. See also, Weyerhaeuser 

Co. v. Castle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978). 

DOE eschewed all of these principles 

when it made a significant change to its 

rule. 

B. DOE’s Unilateral Decision Is Not a 

Logical Outgrowth From the Proposed 

Rule and Will Have Wide Ranging 

Implications 

By inserting a new estimate for SCC 

values, DOE denied interested parties 

the opportunity to comment on DOE’s 

motivations, methodologies and 

conclusions in reaching said values. The 

public has also been denied the 

opportunity to question the calculations 

utilized by the ‘‘Interagency Working 

Group on Social Costs of Carbon.’’ 

Instead, these new values were 

unilaterally placed into a final 

regulation with no notice or opportunity 

to comment. These new values are not 

a logical outgrowth from the proposed 

rule. In fact, DOE notes in both the 

proposed and final rules, ‘‘that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable. 

. . .’’ 77 Fed Reg. 8555, 78 FR 36351. 

DOE acknowledges that ‘‘key 

uncertainties remain,’’ yet disregards its 

obligation to receive potentially 

instructive information by providing a 

forum for public comment. 

Additionally, these changes are 

significant and wide reaching. DOE 

concedes that other agencies will utilize 

these new values when calculating the 

costs and benefits of rules relating to 

greenhouse gasses. It states, ‘‘the 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions . . .’’ 78 FR 

36349. With this unilateral change, 

agency cost benefit analyses will be 

drastically affected. Going forward, any 

federal rule limiting carbon dioxide 

emissions will appear considerably 

more valuable than under previous 

analyses. Such a change could ‘‘have 

wide-ranging implications for 

everything from power plants to the 

Keystone XL pipeline.’’ Mark Brajem, 

‘‘Obama Quietly Raises ‘Carbon Price’ as 

Costs to Climate Increase.’’ 

Bloomberg.com, June 12, 2013 

(Attached as Exhibit A.) In choosing to 

bypass the mandated notice and 

comment procedures for this significant 

change, DOE has violated the APA. The 

Department can rectify this violation by 

halting the regulation’s implementation 

and allowing for public comment. 

C. DOE Disregarded Executive Order 

13563 When It Failed To Provide for 

Notice and Comment on the New Data 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued an executive order 

requiring that agency rulemaking ‘‘shall 

be adopted through a process that 

involves public participation.’’ 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. In 

particular, the President’s executive 

order provided: 

To promote that open exchange, each 

agency, consistent with Executive Order 

12866 and other applicable legal 

requirements, shall endeavor to provide the 

public with an opportunity to participate in 

the regulatory process. To the extent feasible 

and permitted by law, each agency shall 

afford the public a meaningful opportunity to 

comment through the Internet on any 

proposed regulation, with a comment period 

that should generally be at least 60 days. To 

the extent feasible and permitted by law, 

each agency shall also provide, for both 

proposed and final rules, timely online 

access to the rulemaking docket on 

regulations.gov, including relevant scientific 

and technical findings, in an open format 

that can be easily searched and downloaded. 

For proposed rules, such access shall 

include, to the extent feasible and permitted 

by law, an opportunity for public comment 

on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking 

docket, including relevant scientific and 

technical findings. Id. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49978 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

For reasons set forth above, the DOE’s 

actions also violate the principles 

outlined in President Obama’s order. 

Conclusion 

Landmark respectfully requests DOE 

immediately halt implementation and 

rescind the Rule. In the alternative, 

Landmark requests DOE adhere to the 

mandates of the APA, and subject the 

changes documented in this Petition to 

a proper notice and comment. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Mark R. Levin, President 

Landmark Legal Foundation, 19415 Deerfield 

Ave., Suite 312, Leesburg, VA 20176. 

JULY 2, 2013 

[FR Doc. 2013–19950 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0694; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–097–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 supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2002–10– 

11, which applies to certain the Boeing 

Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. 

AD 2002–10–11 currently requires 

repetitive inspections for cracking and 

corrosion of the aft pressure bulkhead, 

and corrective actions if necessary; and, 

for certain airplanes, enlargement of 

frame chord drain holes, and repetitive 

inspections of the frame chord drain 

path for debris, and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since we issued AD 2002– 

10–11, we have received three reports of 

severe corrosion in the area affected by 

that AD. This proposed AD would, for 

certain airplanes, reduce the repetitive 

inspection interval, and add repetitive 

inspections of the frame chord drain 

path for obstructions and debris, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD would also limit corrosion 

and cracking repairs of the aft pressure 

bulkhead accomplished after the 

effective date of this AD to those 

approved by the FAA in a manner 

described therein. In reviewing AD 

2002–10–11, we noted that the drain 

path inspection was not required for 

certain airplanes, and could be 

eliminated for all airplanes if operators 

accomplished certain actions required 

by AD 2002–10–11. This proposed AD 

would add a drain path inspection for 

all airplanes. We are proposing this AD 

to detect and correct corrosion or 

cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead, 

which could result in loss of the aft 

pressure bulkhead web and stiffeners, 

and consequent rapid decompression of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 30, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the 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; 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: 

Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6450; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: alan.pohl@

faa.gov. 

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–2013–0694; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–097–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 

On May 14, 2002, we issued AD 

2002–10–11, Amendment 39–12757 (67 

FR 36085, May 23, 2002), for certain 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. AD 

2002–10–11 superseded AD 84–20–03 

R1, Amendment 39–5183 (50 FR 51235, 

December 16, 1985). AD 2002–10–11 

requires repetitive inspections for 

cracking and corrosion of the aft 

pressure bulkhead, and corrective 

actions if necessary; and, for certain 

airplanes, enlargement of frame chord 

drain holes, repetitive inspections of the 

frame chord drain path for obstructions 

and debris, and corrective actions if 

necessary. We issued AD 2002–10–11 to 

detect and correct corrosion or cracking 

of the aft pressure bulkhead at body 

station (BS) 1016, which could result in 

loss of the aft pressure bulkhead web 

and stiffeners, and consequent rapid 

decompression of the fuselage. 

Actions Since AD 2002–10–11, 

Amendment 39–12757 (67 FR 36085, 

May 23, 2002), Was Issued 

Since 2010, we have received three 

reports of severe corrosion in the aft 

pressure bulkhead. Two of these 

airplanes were corroded completely 

through the thickness of the pressure 

web. The age of the airplanes when 

corrosion was found ranged from 12 to 

17 years. The total flight hours ranged 

from 40,892 to 68,389 hours, and the 

total flight cycles ranged from 22,701 to 

58,156 flight cycles. 

AD 2002–10–11, Amendment 39– 

12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS