Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25121 

republication, the NRC will not initiate 

a second comment period on this action 

in the event the direct final rule is 

withdrawn. 

A significant adverse comment is a 

comment where the commenter 

explains why the rule would be 

inappropriate, including challenges to 

the rule’s underlying premise or 

approach, or would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. A 

comment is adverse and significant if: 

(1) The comment opposes the rule and 

provides a reason sufficient to require a 

substantive response in a notice-andcomment process. For example, a 

substantive response is required when: 

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position 

or conduct additional analysis; 

(b) The comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response to clarify or complete the 

record; or 

(c) The comment raises a relevant 

issue that was not previously addressed 

or considered by the NRC staff. 

(2) The comment proposes a change 

or an addition to the rule, and it is 

apparent that the rule would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without 

incorporation of the change or addition. 

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to make a change (other than editorial) 

to the rule, CoC, or TS. 

For additional procedural information 

and the regulatory analysis, see the 

direct final rule published in the Rules 

and Regulations section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous waste, Nuclear 

materials, Occupational safety and 

health, Radiation protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures, Spent fuel, 

Whistleblowing. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 

553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the 

following amendments to 10 CFR part 

72. 

PART 72—LICENSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND 

REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN 

CLASS C WASTE 

1. The authority citation for part 72 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 

81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 

929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 

955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. 

L. 86–373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95–601, sec. 

10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102– 

486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 

5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 

(42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 

137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 

2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100–203, 101 

Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 

10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); 

sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 806–10 

(42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). 

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 

142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101 

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C. 

10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also 

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 

(42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also 

issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100–203, 

101 Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). 

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 

2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). 

Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 

133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 

218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of 

Compliance 1030 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks. 

* * * * * 

Certificate Number: 1030. 

Initial Certificate Effective Date: 

January 10, 2007. 

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: 

July 21, 2010. 

SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc. 

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis 

Report for the NUHOMS® HD 

Horizontal Modular Storage System for 

Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. 

Docket Number: 72–1030. 

Certificate Expiration Date: January 

10, 2027. 

Model Number: NUHOMS® HD– 

32PTH. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of April 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

R.W. Borchardt, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10674 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–CE–0014] 

RIN 1904–AC23 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy and Office of the 

General Counsel, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI); 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the ‘‘Department’’) 

intends to expand and revise its existing 

energy efficiency enforcement 

regulations for certain consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment covered under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 

amended (EPCA or the ‘‘Act’’). These 

regulations provide for manufacturer 

submission of compliance statements 

and certification reports to DOE, 

maintenance of compliance records by 

manufacturers, and the availability of 

enforcement actions for improper 

certification or upon a determination of 

noncompliance. To facilitate this 

process and to allow interested parties 

to provide suggestions, comments, and 

information, DOE is publishing this 

request for information. This request 

identifies several areas on which DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

information; however, any input and 

suggestions considered relevant to the 

topic are welcome. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

June 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–CE–0014, by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: to 

EnforcementRFI@hq.DOE.gov. Include 

EERE–2010–BT–CE–0014 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2010– 

BT–CE–0014, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Ms. Celia 

Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of the General Counsel, Forrestal 

Building, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. 

Telephone: 202–287–6122. E-mail: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov; and Mr. Richard 

Karney, 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. 

Telephone: 202–586–9449. E-mail: 

Richard.Karney@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority and Background: EPCA 

authorizes DOE to enforce compliance 

with the energy and water conservation 

standards (all references herein referring 

to energy use and consumption include 

water use and consumption; all 

references to energy efficiency include 

water conservation) established for 

certain consumer products and 

commercial equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6299– 

6305 (consumer products), 6316 

(commercial and industrial equipment). 

To ensure that all covered products 

distributed in the United States comply 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards, the Department has 

promulgated enforcement regulations 

that include specific certification and 

compliance requirements. See Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) part 430, subpart F; 10 CFR part 

431, subparts B, K, S, T, U, and V. 

The Department is considering 

revising its enforcement procedures to 

ensure that all of its energy efficiency 

regulations are rigorously and 

consistently enforced. The Department 

is issuing this initial request for 

information to allow interested parties 

an opportunity to provide information 

that will assist DOE in reforming the 

existing enforcement process. This 

initial request will be followed by a 

notice of proposed rulemaking that will 

be based on the information received as 

a result of this notice and other data and 

information gathered by DOE. 

Public Participation 

A. Submission of Information 

DOE will accept comments in 

response to this RFI under the timeline 

provided in the DATES section above. 

Comments submitted to the Department 

through the eRulemaking Portal or by email should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text file format. Those responding 

should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and wherever possible, comments 

should include the electronic signature 

of the author. Comments submitted to 

the Department by mail or hand 

delivery/courier should include one 

signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles will be accepted. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will become a matter of 

public record and will be made publicly 

available. 

The Department encourages interested 

parties to contact DOE if they would 

like to meet in person to discuss their 

comments. The Department’s policy 

governing ex parte communications is 

posted on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site at: http:// 

www.gc.energy.gov/1309.htm. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

For this RFI, DOE requests comments, 

information, and recommendations on 

the following concepts for the purpose 

of revising current enforcement 

regulations in Parts 430 and 431 of 10 

CFR. As set forth below, we seek 

comment on DOE’s requirements for (1) 

Certification; (2) Enforcement Testing 

and Adjudication; (3) Verification 

Testing; (4) Waivers; and (5) the 

Application of our Regulations to 

Distinctive Products. The sequence of 

these proposals does not reflect any 

specific DOE preference. 

(1) Certification Requirements 

a. Under existing Department rules, 

manufacturers of covered products must 

satisfy a one-time certification 

requirement for each basic model. DOE 

would like to establish an annual 

certification requirement, similar to the 

Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) 

reporting requirements under the FTC’s 

Appliance Labeling Rule (see 16 CFR 

305.8). DOE is also considering options 

to consolidate filings with FTC, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and other agencies, as appropriate, to 

reduce the reporting burdens on 

manufacturers. To the extent there are 

covered products not already required 

to file annual reports with FTC, this 

would increase the reporting burden on 

the manufacturers of those products. 

What are the costs and benefits of 

switching to an annual filing process for 

certification? 

b. DOE is also considering 

implementing a recertification 

requirement when there is a change to 

a basic model that either increases or 

decreases energy efficiency or energy 

consumption. Section 10 CFR 430.62(b) 

presently provides for such reporting to 

DOE only if there is a change that 

increases energy consumption or 

decreases energy efficiency. This system 

creates a disconnect between the 

information certified to DOE and the 

energy consumption or energy 

efficiency of products actually on the 

market. DOE is looking for ways to have 

a more current and complete picture of 

the energy consumption and energy 

efficiency of the covered products being 

distributed in the U.S. Requiring 

recertification for any change in energy 

consumption or energy efficiency is one 

way to address this issue. With regard 

to recertification, should the 

Department establish a threshold 

percentage change in energy 

consumption or energy efficiency that 

must be reached before any 

recertification requirement is triggered? 

If we move to such a system, should the 

threshold percentage be product 

specific? Are there reasons why DOE 

should not require recertification for 

energy efficiency improvements? For 

example, would such a requirement 

create a disincentive to making such 

improvements? If so, to what extent? 

Are there alternative ways to address 

the Department’s interest in obtaining 

more current and complete certification 

data? 

c. In conjunction with the possible 

recertification requirement referenced 

above, DOE is interested in pursuing 

improvements to the manner in which 

basic model numbers are designated, so 

that the number that is provided to DOE 

for certification is clearly associated 

with the model number used to identify 

the unit in the market. A more unified 

numbering system would assist the 

Department and the public in 

identifying the market-based model 

number that corresponds with what is 

certified to DOE. 

d. Under existing regulations, the 

sampling procedures to be used for 

compliance certification purposes are 

set forth in 10 CFR 430.24, and the 

sampling procedures to be used for 

enforcement testing (to determine 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standard) are set forth in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25123 

Appendix B to Subpart F of Part 430. 

The Department seeks comment 

regarding any needed changes in the 

current sampling plans and the reasons 

the changes are warranted for a given 

product. DOE seeks comment on 

whether the sampling procedures for 

compliance certification and 

enforcement testing should be identical. 

e. The regulations currently permit inhouse, as well as independent, 

certification testing. In light of issues 

identified through DOE’s recent 

enforcement efforts and the Government 

Accountability Office’s recent report on 

ENERGY STAR, DOE requests comment 

on whether all covered products should 

be required to be independently tested 

for certification purposes. 

f. Currently, the certification 

regulations allow a manufacturer or 

private labeler to elect to use a third 

party to submit certification reports to 

DOE. Should DOE continue to permit 

this practice? If so, what recourse 

should be available if a third party fails 

to follow through on filing for the 

manufacturer or labeler? Should that 

recourse be available if the third party 

fails just once to file on behalf of the 

manufacturer or labeler? Should DOE 

disallow a third party with a history of 

poor performance (e.g., failure to submit 

certification reports, submission of 

inaccurate information, submission of 

incomplete information) from acting as 

a third party representative? 

(2) Enforcement Testing and 

Adjudication 

a. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE has 

authority to initiate enforcement actions 

to ensure compliance with its standards. 

The current regulations provide for 

enforcement testing upon DOE’s receipt 

of written information that a covered 

product may be violating a standard. 

DOE contemplates revising its 

procedures to allow the Department 

more flexibility in its initiation of 

enforcement actions. For example, DOE 

is considering initiating and performing 

its own testing at the DOE-owned 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL) Appliance Technology 

Evaluation Center (ATEC). DOE seeks 

comments on the use of its own facility 

for testing and the relationship of DOE 

testing as compared to industry testing. 

In addition, DOE contemplates 

initiating enforcement actions, as 

needed, in response to credible 

information, or with reference to a set of 

established factors, such as: 

Manufacturer history of noncompliance; product class history of 

non-compliance; third party referrals 

from other regulatory agencies, 

advocacy groups, consumers, or 

competitors; models or technologies 

new to the marketplace; or other factors 

indicating that a model may not comply 

with the applicable standard. The 

Department seeks comment on this 

concept. Information relating to 

enforcement testing is also requested on 

the following: 

(i) Unit selection. How should units 

be selected for enforcement testing? For 

example, should the units be 

manufacturer provided, supplied by the 

manufacturer’s distributor, obtained offthe-shelf from a retailer, or should DOE 

have the ability to choose from any of 

these options? Should the cost 

allocation for the unit be the same 

regardless of how the product is 

obtained (e.g., off-the-shelf or 

manufacturer provided)? 

Under the current rules for 

enforcement testing, a manufacturer in 

receipt of a DOE test notice must ship 

a select number of units for testing as 

specified on the notice. In situations 

where the manufacturer keeps limited 

inventory, the manufacturer may need 

to build units specifically for 

enforcement testing, rather than 

providing DOE off-the-shelf, or already 

manufactured units. This creates a 

circumstance vulnerable to bias, which 

could undermine the overall 

effectiveness of enforcement testing. Are 

there suggestions regarding how the 

Department should address unit 

selection in these situations? 

(ii) Cost allocation for testing. Should 

the cost of performing the enforcement 

testing be assumed by the manufacturer 

or DOE? Should the cost allocation of 

the testing be different if the product is 

found in compliance? What other 

factors should be taken into 

consideration when determining how to 

distribute the cost of testing? 

(iii) Sampling plan. The Department 

seeks comment regarding any needed 

changes in the current enforcement 

sampling plans and the reasons the 

changes are warranted for a given 

product. As discussed above, the 

Department seeks comment regarding 

the adequacy of the current sampling 

plan for enforcement testing and 

whether the plans for enforcement and 

certification testing should be identical. 

See Part B, Section (1)d. above. 

(iv) Manufacturer role. How should 

manufacturers be apprised of 

enforcement testing steps, including: 

Test set up; test conditions; and test 

data and reports? Should manufacturers 

have the opportunity to do additional 

testing? If so, what conditions and 

timeframe should govern such testing? 

(3) Verification Testing 

a. DOE is considering instituting a 

new requirement for periodic 

verification testing that would be 

applicable to all basic models certified 

with DOE. This requirement would be 

separate from enforcement testing and 

would be used to verify that the units 

distributed into commerce continue to 

be at the certified levels. DOE seeks 

comment on whether DOE should 

require manufacturers and/or private 

labelers to perform verification testing 

according to specified conditions and 

criteria. 

b. With regard to such verification 

testing, the Department seeks comment 

on the following conditions and criteria: 

Information Flow 

(i) With what frequency should 

verification testing be required? What 

specific criteria should be used? Should 

this be an annual requirement? 

(ii) What percentage of basic models 

should be verification tested annually, 

and how should units be selected? How 

many units of each model should be 

tested? What level of tolerance would be 

acceptable if only one unit is tested? 

(iii) What level of information 

resulting from the verification testing 

should be communicated to DOE (e.g., 

test data, test reports, final results)? 

(iv) When and with what frequency 

should verification testing information 

be communicated to DOE? Should 

performance of verification testing be 

documented on the certification report? 

(v) What steps should be taken if a 

basic model fails the verification 

testing? What information should be 

communicated to DOE and when should 

it be communicated? 

(vi) What level of access should DOE 

and its representatives have to testing 

done pursuant to DOE regulations (such 

as the ability to observe testing)? 

Testing Laboratories 

(i) DOE contemplates that testing 

done to verify compliance would be 

performed by independent labs. What 

level of independence from the 

manufacturer should be required? We 

also seek comment on whether we 

should require that verification testing 

be done by a different lab than the lab 

that performed the certification testing. 

(ii) DOE understands that some 

industry associations have in place or 

are currently developing verification 

testing programs. How should such 

industry verification programs tie into 

DOE’s verification testing process? How 

would ties to such programs affect those 

manufacturers that are not members of 

industry associations? What information 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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