54940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

not proposing any changes to our 

regulations at this time. 

Comment: The FCBT commented that 

the regulatory requirement in 

§ 618.8040(b)(9) is not required by the 

Act and may be viewed as an imposition 

on the borrower. Section 618.8040(b)(9) 

prohibits a bank or association from 

conditioning the extension of credit or 

other provision of service on the 

purchase of insurance sold or endorsed 

by a bank or association. At the time 

insurance is offered, a bank or 

association must present a written 

notice that the service is optional, and 

the borrower must sign the notice. 

FCA Response: Section 4.29(b)(1) of 

the Act requires FCA regulations to 

provide that in any case in which 

insurance is required as a condition for 

a loan or other financial assistance from 

a bank or association, notice be given 

that it is not necessary to purchase the 

insurance from the bank or association 

and that the borrower has the option of 

obtaining the insurance elsewhere. The 

signed notice gives effect to this 

statutory requirement and we do not 

believe it imposes an undue burden on 

the bank, association, or the borrower. 

Thus, the FCA believes it is important 

to continue this requirement and we are 

not proposing any changes in our 

regulations at this time. 

Comments: CoBank stated that FCA 

should amend § 618.8330(b) to permit 

disclosure of confidential borrower 

documents upon the issuance of an 

administrative subpoena with the 

proviso that the FCS institution may 

insist on a judge’s order if there is 

reason to believe that the request is 

inappropriate under the circumstances. 

AgFirst stated that the current process 

related to the production of documents 

during civil litigation creates 

unnecessary burdens of time and 

expense for an association, while 

affording no additional protection to the 

borrower. The FCC stated that in regard 

to the provisions of the regulations on 

confidentiality of borrower information, 

the Agency should revisit the 

requirements as they relate to issuing 

subpoenas. 

FCA Response: On August 9, 1999, 

the FCA published a direct final rule at 

64 FR 43046 that allowed a bank or 

association that is a party to litigation 

with a borrower to disclose confidential 

information, and required that if the 

government, bank or association is not 

a party to litigation, confidential 

documents or testimony may be 

produced only under the lawful order of 

a court. We believe that this 

requirement is necessary to protect 

confidentiality of borrower information 

because only the judge can impartially 

decide whether the litigant needs the 

information in the institution’s 

possession. Therefore, we do not believe 

this request warrants any change to our 

regulations at this time. 

H. Disclosure to Shareholders 

Comment: The FCC stated that the 

FCA’s regulations that allow 

associations the option of disclosing 

information regarding compensation of 

senior officers in either the annual 

report or in the annual meeting 

information statement should be 

reviewed because System banks should 

have the similar ability to disclose that 

information in some other manner to 

their stockholders. 

FCA Response: The FCA is currently 

conducting a review of compensation, 

retirement programs, and related 

benefits to consider changes addressing 

disclosure and compliance requirements 

for executive compensation, pension, 

and other benefit programs in the FCS. 

This comment will be considered in the 

course of that review. 

I. Conservators, Receivers, and 

Voluntary Liquidations 

Comments: AgriBank stated that 

§ 627.2710(b) prohibits a funding bank 

from enforcing the terms of its general 

financing agreement (GFA) upon a 

default by an association without the 

prior approval of the FCA. AgriBank 

commented that this is an unwarranted 

infringement on the bank-association 

contractual relationship that places the 

bank in the precarious position of 

entering into a lending relationship with 

an association without the ability to 

collect the indebtedness due absent the 

approval of a third-party regulator. 

FCA Response: This regulation does 

not prevent or prohibit a funding bank 

from enforcing the terms of its GFA. The 

regulation does, however, provide that 

one of the grounds for appointment of 

a receiver or conservator is a default by 

the association on one or more terms of 

its GFA with its affiliated bank if the 

FCA determines the default to be 

material. As we stated in our July 22, 

1998, rulemaking, the FCA, not the bank 

or the association, has the statutory 

authority for determining the grounds 

for appointing a conservator or receiver. 

See 63 FR 39219. We cannot delegate 

that authority to a funding bank, and we 

will be the authority that determines 

whether a default of the GFA is 

materially sufficient to warrant 

appointment of a conservator or 

receiver. Due to the significance of a 

material default of the GFA to an 

association’s financial condition and 

ability to continue operations, we 

believe that this is a material safety 

issue. Thus, we are not proposing any 

changes to our regulations at this time. 

III. Future Efforts To Reduce 

Regulatory Burden on FCS Institutions 

As noted above, we will consider 

remaining regulatory burden issues 

raised during the comment period in 

separate regulatory projects. We will 

continue our efforts to remove 

regulatory burden. However, we will 

maintain those regulations that are 

necessary to implement the Act and that 

are critical for the safety and soundness 

of the System. 

Dated: October 20, 2009. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–25668 Filed 10–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–19559; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NE–03–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc RB211 Trent 700 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

RB211 Trent 700 series turbofan 

engines. That AD currently requires 

initial and repetitive borescope 

inspections of the high pressure-andintermediate pressure (HP–IP) turbine 

internal and external oil vent tubes for 

coking and carbon buildup, and 

cleaning or replacing the vent tubes if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

require the same actions, but would add 

additional inspections of the vent flow 

restrictor. This proposed AD results 

from further analysis that the cleaning 

of the vent tubes required by AD 2007– 

02–05 could lead to loosened carbon 

fragments, causing a blockage 

downstream in the vent flow restrictor. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

internal oil fires due to coking and 

carbon buildup that could cause 

uncontained engine failure and damage 

to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by December 28, 

2009. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54941 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, 

Derby, England; telephone: 011–44– 

1332–249428; fax: 011–44–1332– 

249223, for the service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 

238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2005–19559; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NE–03–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 based on 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 with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of the Web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including, if provided, the name of the 

individual who sent the comment (or 

signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is the same as the Mail 

address provided in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

Discussion 

On January 12, 2007, the FAA issued 

AD 2007–02–05, Amendment 39–14892 

(72 FR 2603, January 22, 2007). The 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, notified us that an unsafe 

condition may exist on RB211 Trent 700 

series turbofan engines. Since AD 2007– 

02–05 was issued, EASA advises that 

further analysis has now identified that 

previous intervention actions may have 

exacerbated the problem of carbon 

formation in the vent pipe. These 

intervention actions are believed to 

loosen carbon fragments which are 

subsequently released during engine 

operation, leading to blockage 

downstream in the vent flow restrictor. 

The resultant reduced vent pipe flow 

will then cause accelerated carbon 

buildup inside the pipe and increased 

likelihood of an internal oil fire. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed and approved the 

technical contents of Rolls-Royce plc 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 

RB.211–72–AE302, Revision 7, dated 

April 30, 2009. That ASB describes 

procedures for borescope inspections of 

the HP–IP turbine internal and external 

oil vent tubes for coking and carbon 

buildup, and cleaning or replacing the 

vent tubes if necessary. That ASB also 

describes procedures for visual 

inspections of the vent pipe restrictor 

immediately after pipe cleaning and a 

high-power engine run. For internal oil 

vent tubes to pass inspection, they must 

allow cleaning tool, number HU80298, 

to pass through them. EASA classified 

this service bulletin as mandatory and 

issued AD 2007–0201 and AD 2007– 

0202 (corrected August 8, 2007), to 

ensure the airworthiness of these RB211 

Trent 700 series turbofan engines in 

Europe. 

Bilateral Agreement Information 

This engine model is manufactured in 

the United Kingdom and is type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of Section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. Under this bilateral 

airworthiness agreement, EASA kept us 

informed of the situation described 

above. We have examined the findings 

of the EASA, reviewed all available 

information, and determined that AD 

action is necessary for products of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

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 products of this same 

type design. We are proposing this AD, 

which would require initial and 

repetitive borescope inspections of the 

HP–IP turbine internal and external oil 

vent tubes for coking and carbon 

buildup, and cleaning or replacing the 

vent tubes if necessary. This proposed 

AD would also require visual 

inspections of the vent flow restrictor 

immediately after pipe cleaning and a 

high-power engine run. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent internal oil fires due 

to coking and carbon buildup that could 

cause uncontained engine failure and 

damage to the airplane. The proposed 

AD would require that you do these 

actions using the service information 

described previously. 

Table 1 Clarification 

We found it necessary to clarify the 

second sentence in the first column of 

the Initial Inspection Table 1, which we 

carried forward from AD 2007–02–05. 

We changed ‘‘Has fewer than 10,000 

hours TSN or fewer than 2,500 CSN on 

the effective date of this AD’’ to ‘‘Has 

fewer than 10,000 hours TSN and fewer 

than 2,500 CSN on the effective date of 

this AD.’’ 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 33 engines of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about one work-hour per engine to 

comply with this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Required parts would cost about $2,000 

per engine. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of the proposed AD on 

U.S. operators to be $68,640. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54942 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed AD: 

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. Would 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. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Amendment 39–14892 (72 FR 

2603, January 22, 2007) and by adding 

a new airworthiness directive, to read as 

follows: 

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2005– 

19559; Directorate Identifier 2004–NE– 

03–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by 

December 28, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2007–02–05, 

Amendment 39–14892. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

RB211 Trent 768–60, RB211 Trent 772–60, 

and RB211 Trent 772B–60 series turbofan 

engines. These engines are installed on, but 

not limited to, Airbus A330–243, –341, –342 

and –343 series airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from further analysis 

that the cleaning of the vent tubes required 

by AD 2007–02–05 could lead to loosened 

carbon fragments, causing a blockage 

downstream in the vent flow restrictor. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent internal oil 

fires due to coking and carbon buildup that 

could cause uncontained engine failure and 

damage to the airplane. 

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. 

Initial Inspections, Cleaning, and 

Replacements 

(f) Using the schedule in Table 1 of this 

AD, borescope-inspect and clean as 

necessary, the high pressure-andintermediate pressure (HP–IP) turbine 

internal oil vent tubes, external oil vent 

tubes, and bearing chamber. 

TABLE 1—INITIAL INSPECTION SCHEDULE

If the engine or the 05 module: Then initially inspect: 

Has reached 10,000 hours time-since-new (TSN) or reached 2,500 cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD.Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD. 

Has fewer than 10,000 hours TSN and fewer than 2,500 CSN on the 

effective date of this AD.

Within 3 months after reaching 10,000 hours TSN or 2,500 CSN, 

whichever occurs first. 

Is returned for an engine shop visit ......................................................... Before returning to service. 

(1) If after cleaning, there is still carbon in 

the vent tube that prevents cleaning tool 

number HU80298 from passing through the 

tube, then replace the internal oil vent tube 

within 10 cycles-in-service (CIS). 

(2) If after cleaning, there is still carbon of 

visible thickness in either of the two external 

oil vent tubes, then replace the external oil 

vent tube before further flight. 

(3) Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7) of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of RR Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211–72– 

AE302, Revision 7, dated April 30, 2009, to 

do the borescope inspections and cleaning of 

the oil vent tubes and bearing chamber. 

Initial Visual Inspection of the Vent Flow 

Restrictor 

(g) For engines that, on the effective date 

of this AD, have not accumulated 25 service 

cycles since the last cleaning and inspection, 

visually inspect the vent flow restrictor either 

after a high-power ground run or within 25 

service cycles of the last cleaning and 

inspection. 

(h) For engines that, on the effective date 

of this AD, have accumulated 25 or more 

service cycles since the last cleaning and 

inspection, visually inspect the vent flow 

restrictor either after a high-power ground 

run or within 25 service cycles after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) Use paragraph 3.A.(8) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB No. 

RB.211–72–AE302, Revision 7, dated April 

30, 2009, to do the visual inspections. 

Repetitive Inspections, Cleaning, and 

Replacements 

(j) Within 6,400 hours time-in-service since 

last inspection and cleaning, or within 1,600 

cycles-since-last inspection and cleaning, or 

at the next engine shop visit, whichever 

occurs first, borescope-inspect the HP–IP 

turbine internal and external oil vent tubes 

and bearing chamber, and clean the oil vent 

tubes as necessary. 

(1) If after cleaning there is still carbon in 

the internal oil vent tube that prevents 

cleaning tool, number HU80298, from 

passing through the tube, then replace the 

internal oil vent tube within 10 CIS. 

(2) If after cleaning there is still carbon of 

visible thickness, in either of the two external 

oil vent tubes, then replace the external oil 

vent tube before further flight. 

(3) Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7) of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB 

No. RB.211–72–AE302, Revision 7, dated 

April 30, 2009, to do the borescope 

inspections and cleaning of the oil vent tubes 

and bearing chamber. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54943 

(k) Visually inspect the vent flow restrictor 

either after a high-power ground run or 

within 25 service cycles after performing the 

cleaning and inspection specified in 

paragraph (f) through (f)(3) of this AD. Use 

paragraph 3.A.(8) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of RR ASB No. RB.211–72– 

AE302, Revision 7, dated April 30, 2009, to 

do the visual inspection. 

Definition 

(l) For the purpose of this AD, an engine 

shop visit is induction of the engine into the 

engine shop for any cause. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(m) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(n) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 

2007–0201, dated August 1, 2007, and AD 

2007–0202 (corrected August 8, 2007), also 

address the subject of this AD. Rolls-Royce 

plc ASB No. RB.211–72–AE302, Revision 7, 

dated April 30, 2009, pertains to the subject 

of this AD. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 

31, Derby, England; telephone: 011–44– 

1332–249428; fax: 011–44–1332–249223, for 

the service information identified in this AD. 

(o) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 16, 2009. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25645 Filed 10–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0867; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–ASW–16] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Establishment of Area 

Navigation Route Q–37; Texas 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish a high altitude area navigation 

(RNAV) route, designated Q–37, 

extending between the Pueblo, CO, very 

high frequency omnidirectional range/ 

tactical air navigation (VORTAC) 

navigation aid and the Fort Stockton, 

TX, VORTAC. The new route would 

provide pilots and air traffic controllers 

with an efficient alternative route 

around potentially constrained airspace 

during convective weather events in 

west Texas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0867 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–ASW–16 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules 

Group, Office of System Operations 

Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0867 and Airspace Docket No. 09– 

ASW–16) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0867 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–ASW–16.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

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/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 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Central Service Center, Operations 

Support Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Fort Worth, TX 76137. 

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. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to establish a high 

altitude RNAV route, designated Q–37, 

between the Pueblo, CO, VORTAC and 

the Fort Stockton, TX, VORTAC. The 

new route would provide pilots and air 

traffic controllers with an efficient 

alternative route around potentially 

constrained airspace during convective 

weather events in west Texas. 

Additionally, the new route would be 

integrated into the existing National 

Playbook Severe Weather Avoidance 

Plan routes to Houston, TX, terminal 

airports through Albuquerque Air Route 

Traffic Control Center’s airspace, in lieu 

of the current process of coordinating 

tactical modifications to routings with 

the FAA Air Traffic Control System 

Command Center. 

High altitude RNAV routes are 

published in paragraph 2006 of FAA 

Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, 

and effective September 15, 2009, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The RNAV route listed in this 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1