### 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
V MO and V C 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 V MO rather than
V C may be warranted. While most structures rules are based on V C , allowing these very speed-dependent criteria to be based on V MO 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 V MO and V C 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 V MO rather than V C ?

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.


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

**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)


### 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:



### E STIMATED 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.



### O N



### - 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.


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

(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


### 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