42756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

trends and numbers for the 21 species 

of birds in North America with mean 

body masses greater than 4 pounds and 

at least 10 strikes with civil aircraft from 

1990–2012. Of these 21 species, 17 had 

shown population increases from 1990– 

2012 with a net gain of 17 million birds. 

Previous research had documented that 

13 of the 14 bird species in North 

America with mean body masses greater 

than 8 pounds showed significant 

population increases from 1970 to the 

early 1990s (Dolbeer and Eschenfelder 

2003).’’ 

Airspeed Information 

In the U.S., § 91.117 prescribes a 

speed restriction of 250 knots indicated 

airspeed below 10,000 feet mean sea 

level. The 250 knot speed restriction is 

also in place in Mexico and Canada, and 

in many areas around the world, but not 

everywhere. Where this speed 

restriction is in place, it provides a 

significant safety benefit with respect to 

bird strikes. 

While deviations to this speed 

restriction are allowed, and the 

requirement is not global, it does 

indicate that limiting airspeed below 

10,000 feet is operationally feasible for 

transport category airplanes. Indeed, to 

meet current bird strike criteria, some 

manufacturers specify relatively low 

VMO and VC airspeeds up to 8000 feet, 

that increase above that altitude. These 

speed ‘‘cutbacks’’ at lower altitudes are 

beneficial for three reasons: (1) They 

increase safety by reducing the energy of 

any bird strike that occurs below 8000 

feet, (2) they apply to all airspace, not 

just those areas covered by US operating 

regulations, or those of other countries, 

and (3) they reduce the bird strike 

speeds to which the airplane must be 

designed. 

To encourage these speed cutbacks, 

we believe establishing the bird strike 

speed criteria based on VMO rather than 

VC may be warranted. While most 

structures rules are based on VC, 

allowing these very speed-dependent 

criteria to be based on VMO may make 

the establishment of speed cutbacks 

easier to achieve. 

Summary of FAA Findings 

Our review of bird strike event data 

and bird population data indicates the 

following: 

1. Bird strikes have occurred and will 

continue to occur at energy levels that 

exceed the level provided by current 

requirements. 

2. Numerous bird strikes have 

resulted in penetration into the flight 

deck, mostly below the windshield, 

even at energy levels below current 

requirements. Penetration of the cockpit 

obviously introduces a number of 

significant risks to the airplane. 

Currently, there is no requirement that 

specifically prohibits penetration of the 

flight deck through structure other than 

the windshield. 

3. The bird strike threat has increased, 

especially the threat due to larger birds. 

Therefore, current fleet history may not 

be indicative of what to expect in the 

future. 

4. Bird strike events often involve 

more than one bird. Such multiple bird 

strikes may result in structural damage 

in several areas, pilot disorientation, 

engine failure and systems failures. Any 

one of these effects can significantly 

reduce the controllability of the 

airplane. Sections 25.571 and 25.631 

assume a single bird strike, rather than 

multiple bird strikes. The FAA believes 

that this single bird strike approach is 

an adequate approach for airframe 

structure as long as the single bird strike 

criteria are robust. By showing the 

structure capable of withstanding a 

significant bird strike in any one area, 

a bird strike to that area should not 

compound the hazard from strikes in 

other areas. 

5. Limiting airspeed below 10,000 feet 

is operationally feasible for transport 

category airplanes. Bird strike data 

indicate numerous damaging bird 

strikes have occurred above 8000 feet, 

but above 10,000 feet, bird strikes are 

rare. Therefore, expanding the envelope 

above 8000 feet, but limiting it at 10,000 

feet, may be warranted. 

6. Establishing reduced VMO and VC

airspeeds at lower altitudes provides a 

significant safety benefit with respect to 

bird strikes. 

Request for Comments 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

comment on the need for, and the 

possible scope of, changes to the bird 

strike requirements for transport 

category airplanes by submitting written 

data, views, or arguments as they may 

desire. We invite comments relating to 

the technical or economic impact that 

might result from any considerations 

discussed herein, as well as any 

alternative suggestions. In particular, we 

invite information, comments, and 

opinion on the following questions: 

1. Should the bird weight requirement 

be applied consistently across the 

airplane? 

2. Should the bird weight requirement 

be increased, to eight pounds or some 

other value? 

3. Should a ‘‘no-penetration’’ 

requirement be applied to the entire 

fuselage, not just the windshields? 

4. Should the bird strike criteria be 

expanded to 10,000 feet? 

5. Should the 0.85 speed reduction 

factor at 8000 feet, currently specified in 

§ 25.571, be removed? 

6. Should the speed criterion for bird 

strikes be based on VMO rather than VC? 

Conclusion 

This document solicits public 

comments on the need for, and the 

possible scope of, changes to the bird 

strike certification requirements for 

transport category airplanes. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aircraft safety. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 

2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17404 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–2462; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–224–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 adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 737–100, 

–200, –200C, –300, –400, –500 series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of cracked antenna 

support channels, skin cracking 

underneath the number 2 very high 

frequency (VHF) antenna, and cracking 

in the frames attached to the internal 

support structure. This proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections to 

determine the condition of the skin and 

the internal support structure, and 

follow-on actions including corrective 

action as necessary. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct skin 

cracking of the fuselage which could 

result in separation of the number 2 

VHF antenna from the airplane and 

rapid depressurization of the cabin. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 3, 2015. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42757 

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 view 

this 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. It is also available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

2462. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

2462; 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: 

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; 

fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

wayne.lockett@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– 

2015–2462; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–224–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 cracked 

antenna support channels, skin cracking 

underneath the number 2 VHF antenna, 

and cracking in the frames attached to 

the internal support structure. The 

cracking is caused when the nose gear 

is let down, resulting in turbulent 

airflow around the antenna. The 

turbulent airflow causes vibration in the 

antenna, which results in the skin, as 

well as the internal support structure 

and frames, to crack due to fatigue. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in separation of the antenna from the 

airplane and rapid depressurization of 

the cabin. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014. The service information describes 

procedures for repetitive inspections to 

determine the condition of the skin and 

the internal support structure, and 

follow-on actions including corrective 

action as necessary. This service 

information is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM. 

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 identified 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

Difference Between This Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Tables 7, 8, and 9 in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014, specify post-modification and 

post-repair inspections, which may be 

used in support of compliance with 

section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations 14 

CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2)). 

However, this NPRM does not propose 

to require those post-modification and 

post-repair inspections. This difference 

has been coordinated with Boeing. 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated 

October 20, 2014, 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. 

Explanation of ‘‘RC (Required for 

Compliance)’’ Steps in Service 

Information 

The FAA worked in conjunction with 

industry, under the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to 

enhance the AD system. One 

enhancement was a new process for 

annotating which steps in the service 

information are required for compliance 

with an AD. Differentiating these steps 

from other tasks in the service 

information is expected to improve an 

owner’s/operator’s understanding of 

crucial AD requirements and help 

provide consistent judgment in AD 

compliance. The steps identified as RC 

(required for compliance) in any service 

information identified previously have a 

direct effect on detecting, preventing, 

resolving, or eliminating an identified 

unsafe condition. 

For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the following 

provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled 

as RC, including substeps under an RC 

step and any figures identified in an RC 

step, must be done to comply with the 

AD, and an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) is required for any 

deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures; and (2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

steps not labeled as RC may be deviated 

from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program 

without obtaining approval of an 

AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified 

figures, can still be done as specified, 

and the airplane can be put back in an 

airworthy condition. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 609 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Inspections .... 33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 per inspection cycle.$0 $2,805 per inspection 

cycle.

$1,708,245 per inspection 

cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary [repairs/modifications] 

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/ 

modifications. 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Repair and Preventive Modification ... 63 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,355 ................................ $10,432 Up to $15,787. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

of the costs of this proposed AD may be 

covered under warranty, thereby 

reducing the cost impact on affected 

individuals. We do not control warranty 

coverage for affected individuals. As a 

result, we have included all costs in our 

cost estimate. 

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– 

2015–2462; Directorate Identifier 2014 

NM–224–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by September 

3, 2015. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, 

and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category, as identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, 

Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracked antenna support channels, skin 

cracking underneath the number 2 VHF 

antenna, and cracking in the frames attached 

to the internal support structure. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct skin 

cracking of the fuselage that could result in 

separation of the antenna from the airplane 

and rapid depressurization of the cabin. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Follow-on Actions: 

Group 1 

For airplanes identified as Group 1 in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014: Within 120 days after the effective date 

of this AD, inspect for cracking at the number 

2 VHF antenna location, and do all 

applicable follow-on actions, using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42759 

(h) Inspection and Follow-on Actions: 

Groups 2 through 6, Configurations 1 

through 3 

For airplanes identified as Groups 2 

through 6, configurations 1 through 3 in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014: Within 1,250 flight cycles after the 

effective date of this AD, do an external 

detailed inspection for cracking of the 

fuselage skin, as applicable, and do all 

corrective actions, in accordance with Part 1 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014. Thereafter, at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014, except as required by paragraph (l)(1) 

of this AD: Do all applicable actions specified 

in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD. 

(1) Repeat the Part 1 inspection specified 

in paragraph (h) of this AD until the 

accomplishment of paragraphs (k)(1) and 

(k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(2) Inspect for cracking at the number 2 

VHF antenna location using internal and 

external detailed inspections, internal and 

external high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections, and an HFEC open-hole 

inspection, in accordance with Part 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014. 

Repeat the inspections until the 

accomplishment of paragraphs (k)(1) and 

(k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(3) Repair any crack found, in accordance 

with Part 3 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, 

dated October 20, 2014, except as required by 

paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. 

(4) Do a preventive modification, in 

accordance with Part 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737 53 

1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014, 

except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this 

AD. The accomplishment of this preventive 

modification terminates the inspections 

required by paragraphs (g), (g)(1), and (h)(2) 

of this AD. 

(i) Inspection and Follow-on Actions: 

Groups 3 through 6, Configuration 4 

For airplanes identified as Groups 3 

through 6, Configuration 4, in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, 

Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014: At the 

applicable time specified in table 10 of 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014; Do 

an external detailed inspection for cracking 

at the outer row of fasteners common to the 

internal repair doubler, and do an internal 

general visual inspection for cracking on the 

modified internal support structure of the 

number 2 VHF antenna, skin, and 

surrounding stringers, channel, and frames, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, 

dated October 20, 2014. 

(1) If any cracking is found, before further 

flight, repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(2) If no cracking is found, repeat the 

inspections at the time specified in table 10 

of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

SB 737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 

20, 2014. 

(j) Post Repair/Post Modification Inspections 

For airplanes identified as Group 2, 

Configuration 1, and Groups 3 through 6, 

Configurations 1 through 3, in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, 

Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014: The postrepair/post-modification inspections 

specified in tables 7 through 9 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, 

Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014, are not 

required by this AD. 

Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD: The 

post-repair/post-modification inspections 

specified in tables 7 through 9 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, 

Revision 1, dated October 20, 2014, may be 

used in support of compliance with section 

121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) for the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). 

(k) Terminating Action Provisions 

The following describes terminating action 

for the airplane groups and configurations, as 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, 

dated October 20, 2014. 

(1) For airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 

2; and Groups 3 through 6, Configuration 2: 

Accomplishment of the inspections specified 

in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD terminates the 

repetitive inspection requirements of 

paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 

1, and Groups 3 through 6, Configuration 1, 

2, and 3: Accomplishment of the repair 

specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD 

terminates the repetitive inspections 

specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this 

AD. 

(3) For airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 

1; and Groups 3 through 6, Configurations 1 

and 3: Accomplishment of the preventive 

modification specified in paragraph (h)(4) of 

this AD terminates the initial and repetitive 

inspections specified in paragraphs (h), 

(h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD. 

(l) Exception to Service Bulletin 

Specifications 

(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated 

October 20, 2014 compliance is ‘‘after the 

Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within the specified 

compliance time after the effective date of 

this AD. Do the inspection, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of the 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated October 20, 

2014. 

(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–53–1159, Revision 1, dated 

October 20, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing 

for appropriate action, and specifies that 

action as ‘‘RC’’ (Required for Compliance): 

Before further flight, repair the cracking 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of 

this AD. 

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 

paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

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 

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) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii) apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(n) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov. 

(2) For information on AMOCs, contact 

Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712– 

4137; phone: 562–627–5210; fax: 562–627– 

5234; email: nenita.odesa@faa.gov. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

may view this 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. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 10, 

2015. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17688 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–1137; Airspace 

Docket No. 15–ANM–4] 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Portland, OR 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify Class E surface area airspace 

designated as an extension to the Class 

C airspace, and Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface at Portland International 

Airport, Portland, OR. After reviewing 

the airspace, the FAA found the 

Portland VHF omnidirectional radio 

range/distance measuring equipment 

(VOR/DME) and Laker non-directional 

beacon (NDB) have been 

decommissioned, thereby necessitating 

airspace redesign for the safety and 

management of Instrument Flight Rules 

(IFR) operations at the airport. This 

proposal also would correct the 

geographic coordinates of the airport. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 

366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2015–1137; Airspace 

Docket No. 15–ANM–4, at the beginning 

of your comments. You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

review the public docket containing the 

proposal, any comments received, and 

any final disposition in person in the 

Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone 1–800–647–5527), is 

on the ground floor of the building at 

the above address. 

FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. The Order is also 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030, or go to http://

www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_

locations.html. 

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. For further information, 

you can contact the Airspace Policy and 

Regulations Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; 

telephone: 202–267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Haga, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 203–4563. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

amend Class E airspace at Portland 

International Airport, Portland, OR. 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2015–1137; Airspace 

Docket No. 15–ANM–4.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_

traffic/publications/airspace_

amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for the address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the Northwest 

Mountain Regional Office of the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, Western Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents Proposed for Incorporation 

by Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 6, 2014, and effective 

September 15, 2014. FAA Order 

7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in 

the ADDRESSES section of this proposed 

rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, 

B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic 

service routes, and reporting points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E 

airspace designated as an extension to 

Class C airspace, and Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface at Portland International 

Airport, Portland, OR. A review of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS