### 69685 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

considered valid unless unanimously approved.

* * * * *

5. Amend § 987.52 by designating the existing text as paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 987.52 [Amended]**

(a) * * * (b) The Committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, recommend that the handling of any date variety be exempted from regulations established pursuant to §§ 987.39 through 987.51 and §§ 987.61 through 987.72.

6. Amend § 987.72 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) through (e), respectively; by adding a new paragraph (b); and by revising redesignated paragraph (d) to read as follows:

**§ 987.72 [Amended]**
* * * * *

(b) Delinquent payments. Any assessment not paid by a handler within a period of time prescribed by the Committee may be subject to an interest or late payment charge, or both. The period of time, rate of interest, and late payment charge shall be as recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary.

(c) * * * (d) Operating reserve. The Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish and maintain during one or more crop years an operating monetary reserve in an amount not to exceed the average of one year’s expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established reserve need not be reduced to conform to any recomputed average. Funds in reserve shall be available for use by the Committee for expenses authorized pursuant to § 987.71.

* * * * *

7. Amend § 987.82 by revising paragraph (b)(2), redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(4), and adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

**§ 987.82 [Amended]**
* * * * *

(b) * * * (2) When favored by producers. The Secretary shall terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any crop year whenever he or she finds that such termination is favored by a majority of the producers of dates who, during that crop year, have been engaged in the production for market of dates in the area of production: Provided, That such majority have, during such period, produced for market more than 50 percent of the volume of such dates produced for market within said area; but such termination shall be effective only if announced on or before August 1 of the then current crop year.

(3) Continuance referendum. The Secretary shall conduct a referendum six years after the effective date of this section and every sixth year thereafter to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any crop year in which he or she has found that continuance of this part is not favored by producers who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of dates in the production area.

* * * * *

8. Revise § 987.124(a) to read as follows:

**§ 987.124 Nomination and polling.**

(a) Date producers and producerhandlers shall be provided an opportunity to nominate and vote for individuals to serve on the Committee. For this purpose, the Committee shall, no later than June 15 of every third year,provide date producers and producerhandlers nomination and balloting material by mail or equivalent electronic means, upon which producers and producer-handlers may nominate candidates and cast their votes for members and alternate members of the Committee in accordance with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, respectively. All ballots are subject to verification. Balloting material should be provided to voters at least two weeks before the due date and should contain, at least, the following information:

(1) The names of incumbents who are willing and eligible to continue to serve on the Committee;

(2) The names of other persons willing and eligible to serve;

(3) Instructions on how voters may add write-in candidates;

(4) The date on which the ballot is due to the Committee or its agent; and

(5) How and where to return ballots.

[FR Doc. 2011–29032 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2011–1168; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–239–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767–200 and –300**  **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 all The Boeing Company Model 767–200 and –300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the inner chords at both left-side and right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the frame inner chord transition radius for cracks, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent large cracks in the frames and adjacent structure that can adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 27,
2011.

**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, Washington 98124– 2207; telephone (206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766–5680; email 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


### 69686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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 :**  Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6577; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: Berhane.Alazar@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– 2011–1168; Directorate Identifier 2010– NM–239–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 cracks in the inner chords at both left-side and right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. The reports indicate crack lengths that range from 0.10 inch up to 1.8 inches that originate from the inner chord transition radius. In some cases, the crack has intersected adjacent fastener holes. Analysis has determined the cause of the cracks in the frame inner chords to be a stress concentration at the transition radius. Cracks in the frame inner chord transition radius can propagate and intersect fastener holes in the frame chord. These cracks can propagate further into the frame structure and adjacent structure and become large enough to adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections or surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the frame inner chord transition radius for cracks at stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5, as applicable, left and right buttock line 89, below water line 200; and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary.

Related investigative actions include a detailed inspection for filler(s) between the frame and stub-beam, and measuring for filler thickness if necessary; and an open hole HFEC inspection for cracks in the frame inner chord, failsafe chord, frame web, doubler (if necessary), and stub-beam, if necessary.

Corrective actions include contacting Boeing for repair instructions; repairing; and oversizing the holes, and trimming out the inner chord transition radius crack and installing a 1-to-2 hole repair angle; if necessary.

The compliance time for the initial inspection is either 11,000 total flight cycles or 2,400 flight cycles after the date on the service bulletin (whichever occurs later); or 14,000 total flight cycles or 3,000 flight cycles after the date on the service bulletin (whichever occurs later); depending on airplane configuration. The repetitive inspection interval ranges between 2,400 and 6,000 flight cycles, depending on the inspection type.

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 the same type design. Proposed AD Requirements

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 the Service Information.’’

The post-repair inspections specified in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, are not required by this proposed AD. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following
ways:

• In accordance with 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) whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 325 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:



### E STIMATED 

### COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators

Detailed or HFEC inspection 23 or 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,955 or $2,210 per inspection cycle. $0 $1,955 or $2,210 per inspection cycle. Up to $718,250 per inspection cycle.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs 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 repairs.


### 69687 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

O N 

### -CONDITION 

### COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product

Repair ............................................ 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040. $383 to $8,327 per frame ............. $2,423 to $10,367 per frame.

On-condition detailed and HFEC

inspections and measurement. 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 per frame. $0 .................................................. $595.

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),

(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– 2011–1168; Directorate Identifier 2010– NM–239–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by December 27, 2011.
(b) Affected ADs

None. (c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767–200 and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011.
(d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of cracksin the inner chords at both left-side and rightside stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. We are issuing this AD to prevent large cracks in the frames and adjacent structure that can adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Repetitive Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011: Perform a detailed inspection or a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the frame inner chord transition radius at stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5, as applicable, left buttock line and right buttock line 89, below water line 200; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011; except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011.

Note 1: The post-repair inspections specified in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, may be used in support of compliance with Section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)).

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information

(1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(i) No Reporting Required

Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(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. 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 the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector,


### 69688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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, Seattle 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.

(k) Related Information

(l) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6577; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov.

(2) For service information identified in this 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; email 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 21, 2011. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2011–28759 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY** 

**U.S. Customs and Border Protection**

**19 CFR Part 101**

**[Docket No. USCBP–2011–0031]**

**Modification of the Port Limits of Green Bay, WI** 

**AGENCY :**  U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend the geographic limits of the port of Green Bay, Wisconsin, to update and change the description of the port boundaries to refer to identifiable roadways and waterways rather than townships and to include the entire Austin Straubel Airport. Due to an error, a portion of the airport is located outside the current port limits. The change is part of CBP’s continuing program to more efficiently utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP– 2011–0031, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1179.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket title for this rulemaking, and must reference docket number USCBP– 2011–0031. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http:// www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325–
0118.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert Neustadt, Office of FieldOperations, (312) 983–1201 (not a tollfree number) or by email at Robert.Neustadt@dhs.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. II. Background and Purpose

CBP ports of entry are locations where CBP officers and employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs, immigration, agriculture and related U.S. laws at the border. The term ‘‘port of entry’’ is used in the code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 8 for immigration purposes and in title 19 for customs purposes. For customs purposes, CBP regulations list designated CBP ports of entry and the limits of each port in section 101.3(b)(1) of title 19 (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)).

For immigration purposes, CBP regulations list ports of entry for aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation in section 100.4(a) of title 8 (8 CFR 100.4(a)). These ports are listed according to location by districts and are designated as Class A, B, or C. Green Bay, Wisconsin, is included in this list in District No. 9, as a Class A port of entry, meaning a port that is designated as a port of entry for all aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation.

As part of its continuing efforts to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public, CBP, of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is proposing to extend the port boundaries for the port of entry at Green Bay, Wisconsin.

The port of entry originally consisted of only the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Treasury Decision (T.D) 54597, May 27, 1958, expanded the port limits to also include several townships and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. Specifically, the current port limits of the Green Bay port of entry include the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and the territory within the townships of Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Preble and Howard and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. CBP is proposing to change the port limits because the boundaries of the listed townships are not easy to locate, one of the townships identified in T.D. 54597 (Preble) no longer exists, and due to an error, a portion of the Austin Straubel Airport is located outside the current port limits.

In order to eliminate the discrepancy of the nonexistent township, to make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public, and to correct the omission of a portion of the airport, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to expand and revise the port boundaries. The proposed boundaries