47242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(4) A federally insured credit union or 

IAP making a request pursuant to 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section must demonstrate it does not 

possess and is not aware of any 

information, evidence, documents or 

other materials indicating there is a 

reasonable basis to believe, at the time 

the payment is proposed to be made, 

that: 

(i) The IAP has committed any 

fraudulent act or omission, breach of 

trust or fiduciary duty, or insider abuse 

with regard to the federally insured 

credit union that has had or is likely to 

have a material adverse effect on the 

federally insured credit union; 

(ii) The IAP is substantially 

responsible for the insolvency of, the 

appointment of a conservator 

liquidating agent for, or the troubled 

condition, as defined by § 750.1(l), of 

the federally insured credit union; 

(iii) The IAP has materially violated 

any applicable federal or state law or 

regulation that has had or is likely to 

have a material effect on the federally 

insured credit union; and 

(iv) The IAP has violated or conspired 

to violate sections 215, 656, 657, 1005, 

1006, 1007, 1014, 1032, or 1344 of title 

18 of the United States Code, or sections 

1341 or 1343 of that title affecting a 

federally insured financial institution, 

as defined in title 18 of the United 

States Code. 

(b) In making a determination under 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section, the Board may consider: 

(1) Whether, and to what degree, the 

IAP was in a position of managerial or 

fiduciary responsibility; 

(2) The length of time the IAP was 

affiliated with the federally insured 

credit union and the degree to which 

the proposed payment represents a 

reasonable payment for services 

rendered over the period of 

employment; and 

(3) Any other factors or circumstances 

indicating the proposed payment would 

be contrary to the intent of section 

206(t) of the Act or this part. 

§ 750.5 Permissible indemnification 

payments. 

(a) A federally insured credit union 

may make or agree to make reasonable 

indemnification payments to an IAP 

with respect to an administrative 

proceeding or civil action initiated by 

NCUA or a state regulatory authority if: 

(1) The federally insured credit 

union’s board of directors, in good faith, 

determines in writing after due 

investigation and consideration that the 

institution-affiliated party acted in good 

faith and in a manner he or she believed 

to be in the best interests of the 

institution; 

(2) The federally insured credit 

union’s board of directors, in good faith, 

determines in writing after due 

investigation and consideration that the 

payment of the expenses will not 

materially adversely affect the credit 

union’s safety and soundness; 

(3) The indemnification payments do 

not constitute prohibited 

indemnification payments as defined in 

§ 750.1(k); and 

(4) The IAP agrees in writing to 

reimburse the federally insured credit 

union, to the extent not covered by 

payments from insurance or bonds 

purchased pursuant to § 750.1(k)(2)(i), 

for that portion of the advanced 

indemnification payments which 

subsequently become prohibited 

indemnification payments, as defined in 

§ 750.1(k). 

(b) An IAP seeking indemnification 

payments must not participate in any 

way in the board of director’s discussion 

and approval of such payments; 

however, the IAP may present his or her 

request to the board and respond to any 

inquiries from the board concerning his 

or her involvement in the circumstances 

giving rise to the administrative 

proceeding or civil action. 

(c) In the event a majority of the 

members of the board of directors are 

named as respondents in an 

administrative proceeding or civil 

action and request indemnification, the 

remaining members of the board may 

authorize independent legal counsel to 

review the indemnification request and 

provide the remaining members of the 

board with a written opinion of counsel 

as to whether the conditions in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section have 

been met. If independent legal counsel 

concludes that the conditions have been 

met, the remaining members of the 

board of directors may rely on the 

opinion in authorizing the requested 

indemnification. 

(d) In the event all of the members of 

the board of directors are named as 

respondents in an administrative 

proceeding or civil action and request 

indemnification, the board will 

authorize independent legal counsel to 

review the indemnification request and 

provide the board with a written 

opinion of counsel as to whether the 

conditions in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section have been met. If independent 

legal counsel concludes the conditions 

have been met, the board of directors 

may rely on the opinion in authorizing 

the requested indemnification. 

§ 750.6 Filing instructions. 

Requests to make excess 

nondiscriminatory severance plan 

payments pursuant to § 750.1(f)(2)(v) 

and golden parachute payments 

permitted by § 750.4 must be submitted 

in writing to the Board. The request 

must be in letter form and must contain 

all relevant factual information as well 

as the reasons why such approval 

should be granted. 

§ 750.7 Applicability in the event of 

liquidation or conservatorship. 

The provisions of this part, or any 

consent or approval granted under the 

provisions of this part by the Board, will 

not in any way bind any liquidating 

agent or conservator for a failed 

federally insured credit union and will 

not in any way obligate the liquidating 

agent or conservator to pay any claim or 

obligation pursuant to any golden 

parachute, severance, indemnification 

or other agreement. Claims for employee 

welfare benefits or other benefits that 

are contingent, even if otherwise vested, 

when a liquidating agent or conservator 

is appointed for any federally insured 

credit union, including any contingency 

for termination of employment, are not 

provable claims or actual, direct 

compensatory damage claims against 

such liquidating agent or conservator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19095 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0705; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–206–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Corporation Model DC–9–14, 

DC–9–15, and DC–9–15F Airplanes; 

and Model DC–9–20, DC–9–30, DC–9– 

40, and DC–9–50 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to certain 

Model DC–9–14 and DC–9–15 airplanes; 

and Model DC–9–20, DC–9–30, DC–9– 

40, and DC–9–50 series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires repetitive 

high frequency eddy current inspections 

to detect cracking in the vertical radius 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 47243 

(also known as the ‘‘vertical leg’’) of the 

upper cap of the center wing rear spar, 

and repair if necessary. This proposed 

AD expands the area to be inspected by 

including inspections to detect cracking 

of the horizontal flange of the upper cap 

of the left and right center wing rear 

spar, and repair if necessary. This 

proposed AD also adds certain airplanes 

to the applicability. This proposed AD 

results from reports of cracking in the 

vertical radius of the upper cap of the 

center wing rear spar, and the horizontal 

flange on the inboard side of the rear 

spar upper cap, which resulted from 

stress corrosion. We are proposing this 

AD to detect and correct cracking in the 

vertical leg or the horizontal flange of 

the upper cap of the left or right center 

wing rear spar, which could cause a 

possible fuel leak, damage to the wing 

skin, and structural failure of the upper 

cap, and result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 20, 

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. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, 

Long Beach, California 90846–0001; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; 

fax 206–766–5683; e-mail 

dse.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: 

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210. 

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–2010–0705; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–206–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 November 1, 2004, we issued AD 

2004–23–11, Amendment 39–13866 (69 

FR 65522, November 15, 2004), for 

certain Model DC–9–14 and DC–9–15 

airplanes; and Model DC–9–20, DC–9– 

30, DC–9–40, and DC–9–50 series 

airplanes. That AD requires repetitive 

high frequency eddy current inspections 

to detect cracks in the vertical radius 

(also known as the ‘‘vertical leg’’) of the 

upper cap of the center wing rear spar, 

and repair if necessary. That AD 

resulted from reports of cracks in the 

upper cap of the center wing rear spar 

that resulted from stress corrosion. We 

issued that AD to detect and correct 

cracking of the left or right upper cap of 

the center wing rear spar, which could 

cause a possible fuel leak and structural 

failure of the upper cap, and result in 

reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2004–23–11, one 

operator reported finding two cracks in 

the horizontal flange on the inboard side 

of the rear spar upper cap, and Boeing’s 

investigation determined that the cracks 

resulted from stress corrosion. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Service 

Bulletin DC9–57–223, Revision 1, dated 

August 13, 2009, which adds Model 

DC–9–15F airplanes to the applicability. 

The service bulletin describes 

procedures for doing repetitive high 

frequency eddy current inspections of 

the vertical leg and horizontal flange of 

the upper caps of the left and right 

center wing rear spar, inboard and 

outboard sides, of the bulkhead at wing 

station Xcw = 58.500 for cracking. The 

service bulletin specifies to contact 

Boeing for repair instructions if any 

cracking is found during the 

inspections. We referred to the original 

issue of the service bulletin for 

accomplishing the inspections required 

by AD 2004–23–11. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to develop on 

other airplanes of the same type design. 

For this reason, we are proposing this 

AD, which would supersede AD 2004– 

23–11 and would continue to require 

repetitive high frequency eddy current 

inspections to detect cracks in the 

vertical radius (also known as the 

‘‘vertical leg’’) of the upper cap of the 

center wing rear spar, and repair if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

also require repetitive inspections for 

cracking in the horizontal flange of the 

upper cap of the left or right center wing 

rear spar, and repair if necessary. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Information 

Where Boeing Service Bulletin DC9– 

57–223, Revision 1, dated August 13, 

2009, specifies to contact Boeing for 

repair instructions, this proposed AD 

requires operators to repair any cracking 

in accordance with a method approved 

in accordance with paragraph (k) of the 

AD. 

Change to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2004–23–11. 

Since AD 2004–23–11 was issued, the 

AD format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in AD 

2004–23–11 

Corresponding 

requirement in 

this proposed AD 

Paragraph (f) ............. paragraph (g). 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS— 

Continued 

Requirement in AD 

2004–23–11 

Corresponding 

requirement in 

this proposed AD 

Paragraph (g) ............ paragraph (h). 

Costs of Compliance 

There are approximately 510 

airplanes of the affected design in the 

worldwide fleet. We estimate that 322 

airplanes of U.S. registry would be 

affected by this proposed AD. 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 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number of 

U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection ................. 3 $85 $0 $255 per inspection 

cycle.

322 $82,110 per inspection cycle. 

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 have 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 that the 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. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

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 

removing Amendment 39–13866 (69 FR 

65522, November 15, 2004) and adding 

the following new AD: 

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0705; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–206–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by September 20, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004–23–11, 

Amendment 39–13866. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation Model DC–9–14, DC–9–15, DC– 

9–15F, DC–9–21, DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9– 

32 (VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC–9–33F, DC–9–34, 

DC–9–34F, DC–9–32F (C–9A, C–9B), DC–9– 

41, and DC–9–51 airplanes; certificated in 

any category; as identified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin DC9–57–223, Revision 1, dated 

August 13, 2009. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of cracking 

in the vertical radius (also known as the 

‘‘vertical leg’’) of the upper cap of the center 

wing rear spar, and the horizontal flange on 

the inboard side of the rear spar upper cap, 

which resulted from stress corrosion. The 

Federal Aviation Administration is issuing 

this AD to detect and correct cracking in the 

vertical leg or the horizontal flange of the 

upper cap of the left or right center wing rear 

spar, which could cause a possible fuel leak, 

damage to the wing skin, and structural 

failure of the upper cap, and result in 

reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 

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. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004– 

23–11, With Revised Service Information 

Inspection 

(g) For all airplanes except Model DC–9– 

15F airplanes, at the later of the times 

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

this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current 

inspection to detect cracks in the vertical 

radius of the upper cap of the center wing 

rear spar, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin DC9–57–223, dated July 21, 

2003; or Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. 

After the effective date of this AD, only 

Revision 1 may be used. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(2) Within 15,000 flight cycles or 5 years 

after December 20, 2004 (the effective date of 

AD 2004–23–11), whichever occurs first. 

Corrective Action 

(h)(1) If no crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, then repeat the inspection thereafter at 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 47245 

intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight cycles or 

5 years, whichever occurs first, until the 

initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of 

this AD is done. 

(2) If any crack is found during the 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, before further flight, repair per a method 

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For 

a repair method to be approved by the 

Manager, Los Angeles ACO, as required by 

this paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter 

must specifically refer to this AD. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Inspection 

(i) At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a 

high frequency eddy current inspection to 

detect cracking in the vertical leg (also 

known as the ‘‘vertical radius’’) and 

horizontal flange of the left and right rear 

spar upper cap, inboard and outboard sides, 

at the bulkhead at wing station Xcw = 58.500, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9– 

57–223, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. 

If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 

flight cycles or 5 years, whichever occurs 

first. Accomplishment of the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD terminates the requirements of 

paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of this AD. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 25,000 total 

flight cycles. 

(2) Within 15,000 flight cycles or 5 years 

after accomplishing the most recent high 

frequency eddy current inspection required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

Corrective Action 

(j) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (i) of this 

AD, before further flight, repair the cracking 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of 

this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, Los Angeles 

ACO, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone 

(562) 627–5324; fax (562) 627–5210. 

(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 refer to 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 the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2004–23–11, 

Amendment 39–13866, are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19292 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0706; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–064–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 747–400, 747–400D, 

and 747–400F Series Airplanes 

Equipped With General Electric CF6– 

80C2 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 

Series Engines 

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 747–400, 747–400D, and 747– 

400F series airplanes. This proposed AD 

would require modifying certain thrust 

reverser control system wiring to the 

flap control unit (FCU). This proposed 

AD results from a report of automatic 

retraction of the leading edge flaps due 

to indications transmitted to the FCU 

from the thrust reverser control system 

during takeoff. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent automatic retraction of 

the leading edge flaps during takeoff, 

which could result in reduced climb 

performance and consequent collision 

with terrain and obstacles or forced 

landing of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 20, 

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. 

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: 

Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6505; 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–2010–0706; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–064–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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS