Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 64005 

also collects more detail on riskweighted assets by asset class and offbalance sheet categories. 

With regard to valuation allowances, 

TFR Schedule VA collects greater detail 

on general valuation allowances by asset 

type than does the Call Report. The TFR 

also breaks out specific valuation 

allowances (SVAs), while the Call 

Report combines SVAs with charge-offs. 

Interest rate risk monitoring is another 

area of reporting difference. TFR 

Schedule CMR collects detailed on- and 

off-balance sheet repricing data, from 

which measures of interest rate risk are 

calculated using the proprietary OTS 

NPV Model. OTS provides each savings 

association its own interest rate risk 

measures free of charge in the Interest 

Rate Risk Report. By contrast, the Call 

Report collects only limited repricing 

data. 

Also collected on the TFR are savings 

association holding company data. In 

contrast, bank holding companies are 

required to file with the Federal Reserve 

Board quarterly information (FR Y–9 

series reports) in addition to Call 

Reports for their insured subsidiaries. 

OTS anticipates that savings 

associations would be required to file a 

modified version of the Call Report on 

a quarterly basis, in place of the TFR 

report. As noted above, the modified 

Call Report would include new 

schedules specific to the OTS-regulated 

savings associations such as: 

• Consolidated Maturity/Rate 

Schedule CMR (or similar loan portfolio 

data), 

• Thrift Holding Company data, 

similar to the current TFR Schedule HC, 

and 

• Other supplemental data items. 

Savings associations may be exempt 

from reporting some other Call Report 

items. 

Data Collection Methods 

Currently, savings associations are 

required to file their TFR reports 

electronically using OTS-supplied 

Electronic Filing Software (EFS). This 

software includes features that assist the 

user in the report preparation process. 

Savings associations with questions 

about how to use the EFS or how to 

prepare the TFR report can contact OTS 

directly for customer support. 

If a conversion to the Call Report were 

implemented, savings associations 

would be required to file their Call 

Reports electronically using filing 

software purchased from a third-party 

vendor. Savings associations would 

transmit their Call Report data using the 

technology of the FFIEC’s Central Data 

Repository system. 

Staff 

Converting to the Call Report might 

require savings associations to re-train 

report preparation staff. Call Report 

preparation training is available from 

independent trade or professional 

organizations. 

Analytical Tools 

Savings associations currently receive 

the Uniform Thrift Performance Report 

(UTPR), peer group data, and Interest 

Rate Risk reports each quarter through 

the Financial Reports Subscriber (FRS) 

software provided by OTS. 

If conversion to the Call Report were 

adopted, the Uniform Bank Performance 

Report (UBPR) would be available for 

savings associations from the FFIEC 

Web site. Peer Group analyses, 

including banks, would also be 

available. Savings associations would 

continue to receive their Interest Rate 

Risk reports from the OTS. The reports 

would continue to be based on the CMR 

data, whether the data is submitted with 

the Call Report or directly to OTS. 

Requests for Comments 

OTS would like to provide sufficient 

information to enable the public to 

analyze and comment on the proposed 

conversion from the TFR to the Call 

Report. Please provide comments 

identifying the information you would 

need to evaluate the proposal. OTS will 

research and compile the information 

requested. OTS will publish a second 

notice that will include: (1) The 

requested information, (2) the proposed 

amendments to any OTS regulations 

that will need to be modified, and (3) a 

request for comment on the proposal to 

convert from the TFR to the Call Report. 

All comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: November 6, 2007. 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

John M. Reich, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. E7–22175 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–0109; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–235–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directive; Lockheed 

Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, 

and 382G series airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require revising the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program to include inspections that will 

give no less than the required damage to 

tolerance rating for each structural 

significant item (SSI), doing repetitive 

inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, 

and repairing cracked structure. This 

proposed AD results from a report of 

incidents involving fatigue cracking and 

corrosion in transport category airplanes 

that are approaching or have exceeded 

their design service objective. We are 

proposing this AD to maintain the 

continued structural integrity of the 

entire fleet of Model 382, 382B, 382E, 

382F, and 382G series airplanes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 31, 

2007. 

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 AD, contact Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness 

Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column 

P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, 

Georgia 30063. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
64006 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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: Carl 

Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown 

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 

450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone 

(770) 703–6131; fax (770) 703–6097. 

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 ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2007–0109; Directorate Identifier 2007–

NM–235–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 data and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

received, 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 

In the early 1980s, as part of its 

continuing work to maintain the 

structural integrity of older transport 

category airplanes, the FAA concluded 

that the incidence of fatigue cracking 

may increase as these airplanes reach or 

exceed their design service objective 

(DSO). In light of this, and as a result 

of increased utilization and longer 

operational lives, we determined that a 

supplemental structural inspection 

program (SSIP) was necessary to 

maintain the continued structural 

integrity for all airplanes in the 

transport fleet. 

Issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 

As a follow-on from that 

determination, we issued AC No. 91–56 

‘‘Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Program for Large Transport Category 

Airplanes,’’ dated May 6, 1981. That AC 

provides guidance material to 

manufacturers and operators for use in 

developing a continuing structural 

integrity program to ensure safe 

operation of older airplanes throughout 

their operational lives. This guidance 

material applies to transport airplanes 

that were certified under the fail-safe 

requirements of part 4b (‘‘Airplane 

Airworthiness, Transport Categories’’) of 

the Civil Air Regulations or damage 

tolerance structural requirements of part 

25 (‘‘Airworthiness Standards: 

Transport Category Airplanes’’) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 

CFR part 25), and that have a maximum 

gross weight greater than 75,000 

pounds. The procedures set forth in that 

AC are applicable to transport category 

airplanes operated under subpart D 

(‘‘Special Flight Operations’’) of part 91 

of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 

(‘‘Operating Requirements: Domestic, 

Flag, and Supplemental Operations’’); 

part 125 (‘‘Certification and Operations: 

Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of 

20 or More Passengers or a Maximum 

Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More’’); and 

part 135 (‘‘Operating Requirements: 

Commuter and On-Demand 

Operations’’) of the FAR (14 CFR parts 

121, 125, and 135). The objective of the 

SSIP was to establish inspection 

programs to ensure timely detection of 

fatigue cracking. 

Development of the SSIP 

In order to evaluate the effect of 

increased fatigue cracking with respect 

to maintaining fail-safe design and 

damage tolerance of the structure of 

Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 

382F,and 382G series airplanes, 

Lockheed conducted a structural 

easement of those airplanes, using 

damage tolerance evaluation techniques. 

Lockheed accomplished this 

reassessment using the criteria 

contained in AC No. 91–56, as well as 

Amendment 25–45 of section 25.571 

(‘‘Damage-tolerance and fatigue 

evaluation of structure’’) of the FAR (14 

CFR 25.571). During the reassessment, 

members of the airline industry 

participated with Lockheed in working 

group sessions and developed the SSIP 

for Lockheed Model 382, 382B 382E, 

382F, and 382G series airplanes. 

Engineers and maintenance specialist 

from the FAA also supported these 

sessions. Subsequently, based on the 

working groups’s recommendations, 

Lockheed developed the Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document (SSID). 

Revelant Service Information 

We have reviewed Lockheed Martin 

Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 

Series Aircraft Service Manual 

Publication (SMP), Supplemental 

Structural Inspection Document, SMP 

515–C–SSID, Change 1, dated 

September 10, 2007 (hereafter ‘‘the 

SSID’’). The SSID describes procedures 

for revising the FAA-approved 

maintenance inspection program to 

include inspections that will give no 

less than the required damage tolerance 

assessment/analysis (DTA) for each 

supplemental significant item (SSI), and 

doing repetitive inspections to detect 

cracks of all SSIs. Accomplishing the 

actions specified in the SSID is intended 

to adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other airplanes of the same 

type design. For this reason, we are 

proposing this AD, which would require 

the following actions: 

Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD 

would require incorporation of a 

revision into the FAA-approved 

maintenance inspection program that 

provides no less than the required 

damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each 

SSI listed in the SSID. 

Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD 

would require repetitive inspections to 

detect cracks of all SSIs. 

Paragraph (n) of the proposed AD 

would require repairing any cracked 

structure in accordance with the method 

approved by the FAA. 

Paragraph (o) of the proposed AD 

specifies the requirements of the 

inspection program for transferred 

airplanes. Before any airplane that is 

subject to this proposal AD can be 

added to an air carrier’s operations 

specifications, a program for doing the 

inspections required by this proposed 

AD must be established. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Information 

Section 6.0, ‘‘Structural Inspection 

Requirements’’ of the SSID specifies a 

threshold for accomplishing the initial 

inspections; however, it does not 

specify a grace period for airplanes that 

are near or have passed that threshold. 

This proposed AD would allow a grace 

period of 36 months after the effective 

date of the AD to initiate the applicable 

inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs. 

In addition, this proposed AD would 

require incorporation of the SSID into 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 64007 

the FAA-approved maintenance 

inspection program within 12 months 

after the effective date of the AD. 

The SSID does not specify 

instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions. This proposed AD would 

require operators to repair those 

conditions using a method approved by 

the FAA. 

These differences have been 

coordinated with Lockheed. 

Cost of Compliance 

There are about 91 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

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 Cost 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Revision of maintenance inspection program.600 $80 $48,000 per airplane ............. 14 $672,000. 

Inspections ............................ 2,724 80 $217,920, per airplane, per 

inspection cycle.

14 $3,050,880, per inspection 

cycle. 

The number of inspection work hours, 

as indicated above, is presented as if the 

accomplishment of the actions in this 

proposed AD are to be conducted as 

‘‘stand alone’’ actions. However, in 

actual practice, these actions for the 

most part will be done coincidentally or 

in combination with normally 

scheduled airplane inspections and 

other maintenance program tasks. 

Therefore, the actual number of 

necessary additional inspection work 

hours will be minimal in many 

instances. Additionally, any costs 

associated with special airplane 

scheduling will be minimal. 

Further, compliance with this 

proposed AD would be a means of 

compliance with the aging airplane 

safety final rule (AASFR) for the 

baseline structure of Model 382, 382B, 

382E, 382F, and 382G series airplanes. 

The AASFR final rule requires certain 

operators to incorporate damage 

tolerance inspections into their 

maintenance inspection programs. 

These requirements are described in 14 

CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16. 

Accomplishment of the actions required 

by this proposed AD will meet the 

requirements of these CFR sections for 

the baseline structure. The costs for 

accomplishing the inspection portion of 

this proposed AD were accounted for in 

the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR 

final rule. 

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 determine 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, 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Lockheed: Docket No. FAA–2007–0109; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–235–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by December 31, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Model 

382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G series 

airplanes, certificated in any category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report of 

incidents involving fatigue cracking and 

corrosion in transport category airplanes that 

are approaching or have exceeded their 

design service objective. We are issuing this 

AD to maintain the continued structural 

integrity of the entire fleet of Lockheed 

Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G 

series airplanes. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Service Information 

(f) The term ‘‘the SSID,’’ as used in this 

AD, means Lockheed Martin Model 382, 

382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Series Aircraft 

Service Manual Publication (SMP), 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document, SMP 515–C–SSID, Change 1, 

dated September 10, 2007. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
64008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance 

Inspection Program 

(g) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, incorporte a revision into the 

FAA-approved maintenance inspection 

program that provides no less than the 

required damage tolerance assessment/ 

analysis (DTA) for each structural significant 

item (SSI) listed in the SSID. (The required 

DTA value for each SSI is listed in the SSID.) 

The revision to the maintenance inspection 

program must include and must be 

implemented in accordance with the 

procedures in Section 5.0, ‘‘Damage 

Tolerance Analysis Methodology,’’ and 

Section 7.0, ‘‘Discrepancy Reporting,’’ of the 

SSID. Under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq.), the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in this AD 

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

2120–0056. 

Initial and Repetitive Inspections 

(h) At the later of the times specified in 

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

except as provided by paragraphs (i) through 

(m) of this AD: Do the applicable initial 

inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in 

accordance with the SSID. Repeat the 

applicable inspections thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed the ‘‘Recurring’’ intervals 

specified in Section 6.0.0 of the SSID, except 

as provided by paragraphs (k) through (m) of 

this AD. 

(1) Before the applicable ‘‘Initial’’

threshold specified in Section 6.0.0, 

‘‘Structural Inspection Requirements’’ of the 

SSID. 

(2) Within 36 months after the effective 

date of this AD, or within one ‘‘Recurring’’

interval measured from 12 months after the 

effective date of the AD, whichever comes 

first. 

Exceptions to the SSID 

(i) Where Section 6.0.0 of the SSID 

specifies the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold in years 

(since new), this AD requires compliance 

within the specified year since the date of 

issuance of the original standard 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of 

airworthiness. 

(j) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold as ‘‘Special 

Condition,’’ this AD requires compliance 

within 24 months after the effective date of 

this AD. 

(k) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘FS 1041 Fitting Replacement,’’

this AD requires compliance within 24 

months after the effective date of this AD and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 

months. 

(l) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘Engine Change,’’ this AD 

requires compliance within 24 months after 

the effective date of this AD and thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 36 months. 

(m) Where Section 6.0 of the SSID specifies 

the ‘‘Initial’’ threshold and ‘‘Recurring’’

interval as ‘‘Aft Lord Mount Change,’’ this 

AD requires compliance within 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 

months. 

Repair 

(n) If any cracked structure is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (h) of 

this AD, before further flight, repair the 

cracked structure using a method approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to 

be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, 

as required by this paragraph, the Manager’s 

approval letter must specifically refer to this 

AD. 

Inspection Program for Transferred 

Airplanes 

(o) Before any airplane that is subject to 

this AD and that has exceeded the applicable 

compliance times specified in paragraph (h) 

of this AD can be added to an air carrier’s 

operations specifications, a program for the 

accomplishment of the inspections required 

by this AD must be established in accordance 

with paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes that have been inspected 

in accordance with this AD: The inspection 

of each SSI must be done by the new operator 

in accordance with the previous operator’s 

schedule and inspection method, or the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method, 

at whichever time would result in the earlier 

accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The 

compliance time for accomplishment of this 

inspection must be measured from the last 

inspection accomplished by the previous 

operator. After each inspection has been 

done once, each subsequent inspection must 

be performed in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule and inspection method. 

(2) For airplanes that have not been 

inspected in accordance with this AD: The 

inspection of each SSI required by this AD 

must be done either before adding the 

airplane to the air carrier’s operations 

specification, or in accordance with a 

schedule and an inspection method approved 

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has 

been done once, each subsequent inspection 

must be done in accordance with the new 

operator’s schedule. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(p)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

required in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(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 appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

23, 2007. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–5595 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–29335; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–045–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–

9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–

9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the abovereferenced NPRM, which proposes the 

adoption of a new airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all 

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 

(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 

(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–

88 airplanes. The NPRM would require 

repetitive inspections for cracking of the 

overwing frames from stations 845 to 

905 (MD–87 stations 731 to 791), left 

and right sides, and corrective actions if 

necessary. The NPRM results from 

reports of cracked overwing frames. 

This extension of the comment period is 

necessary to ensure that all interested 

persons have ample opportunity to 

submit any written relevant data, views, 

or arguments regarding the NPRM. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this NPRM by December 3, 2007. 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS