[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 62519]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-53]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-130-000; PR10-131-000; PR10-132-000; PR10-133-000;
PR10-134-000; PR10-135-000; PR10-136-000 (Not Consolidated)]

Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC; KeySpan Gas East Corporation;
ECOP Gas Company, LLC; MGTC, Inc; Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC; Southern
California Gas Company; ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd.; Notice of Baseline
Filings

October 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2010, and October 1, 2010,
respectively the applicants listed above submitted their baseline
filing of its Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided
under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, October 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25519 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29242-29246]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13438]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 35

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0568; FRL-9964-19-OW]
RIN 2040-AF64

Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications Under WIFIA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With this rule EPA establishes fees related to the provision
of federal credit assistance under Subtitle C of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA), which is referred to as the
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA
authorizes EPA to provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to
eligible water infrastructure projects and to charge fees to recover
all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit assistance
and the costs of retaining expert firms, including financial,
engineering, and legal services, in the field of municipal and project
finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit
instruments.

DATES: Effective date: June 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Dorfman, Water Infrastructure
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4201C,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action only applies to entities seeking credit assistance
under the WIFIA program for the development and construction of a water
infrastructure project. EPA has published an interim final rule to
implement this new credit assistance program. A list of eligible
entities and eligible projects can be found in the Interim Final Rule
entitled, ``Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects.'' This
interim final rule is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569,
at http://www.regulations.gov.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is establishing fees associated with the provision of federal
credit assistance under the WIFIA program. WIFIA authorizes EPA to
provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water
infrastructure projects. EPA has published an Interim Final Rule
entitled, ``Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects'' to
establish procedures for the implementation of the WIFIA Program. As
specified under 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), Congress
in WIFIA authorizes EPA to charge fees to recover all or a portion of
the Agency's cost of providing credit assistance and the costs of
retaining expert firms, including financial, engineering, and legal
services, in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in
the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is
establishing an application fee, credit processing fee, servicing fee,
optional supplemental fee, and fee for extraordinary expenses to cover
these costs to the extent not covered by congressional appropriations.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This final rule is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
3908(b)(7), 3909(b), 3909(c)(3), and 3911.

D. What fees are being established?

    In the Interim Final Rule entitled, ``Credit Assistance for Water
Infrastructure Projects,'' EPA established an application process for
WIFIA credit assistance that is divided into two steps. The first step
requires the submission of a letter of interest. No fees are
established for the letter of interest step. Projects selected to
continue in the application process will then be invited to submit an
application at which time the application fee must be paid. For this
second step, EPA will only select those projects that it expects might
reasonably proceed to closing. For more information on this process,
please refer to the WIFIA Implementation Rule at 40 CFR part 35 subpart
Q or in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569, at http://www.regulations.gov. Consequently, EPA anticipates that the fees
established in this rule will apply only to projects EPA expects are
likely to proceed to closing. Detailed application information is
contained in a program guide developed by EPA and posted on the WIFIA
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/wifia. This two-step process limits the
time, cost, and effort required to be expended by prospective borrowers
prior to having a reasonable expectation of funding by WIFIA.
    As described in greater detail below, the types of fees EPA is
establishing are consistent with other Federal Credit programs. In
particular, the WIFIA program was designed by Congress to resemble the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program,
commonly known as TIFIA. Accordingly, to the extent practicable, the
WIFIA program has been crafted by EPA to be implemented in a similar
manner as the Department of Transportation implements the TIFIA
program. The rationale for establishing these fees is to cover EPA's
costs of administering the program to the extent these costs are not
covered by congressional appropriations. To effectively administer the
program, EPA will incur both internal administrative costs (staffing,
program support contracts, and other costs) as well as the costs of
retaining expert firms, including legal, engineering, and financial
services, in the field of municipal and project finance, to assist in
the underwriting of the Federal credit instrument.
    The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016,
Pub. L. 114-332, in section 5008(c), amended WIFIA to allow, at the
request of an applicant, the financing of fees as part of the loan.
While not reflected in this rule, the ability to finance fees as part
of a WIFIA loan is an option available to applicants. EPA will publish
additional information or guidance, as necessary, on its Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/wifia.
Application Fee
    EPA will require a non-refundable application fee for each project
that is invited to submit an application (second step following
submission of letter of interest) for credit assistance under WIFIA.
The application fee will be due upon submission of the application. For
fiscal year 2017, the application fee is $25,000 for applications for
projects serving small communities (population of not more than 25,000
people). For all other project applications, the application fee is
$100,000. These application fees represent an amount equal to 0.5
percent of the minimum threshold project cost ($5 million for small
communities and $20 million for larger communities, 33 U.S.C.
3907(a)(2)), which EPA considers to be sufficient to begin the
financial, engineering, and legal analysis of the project while
providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing,
and therefore costs incurred by EPA may be recovered. EPA will
undertake significant costs to evaluate applications and hire expert
firms for underwriting and considers an application fee essential for
applicants

to show good faith in applying for assistance, to help cover the
agency's administrative costs in processing applications, and to ensure
effective administration of the program. These fees will be required at
the time of submission of the application, and the application will not
be reviewed without fee payment. Because EPA will only invite projects
to submit an application and application fee if the project is
reasonably expected to proceed to closing, no applicant would pay a fee
without a reasonable expectation that the project could receive
funding.
    For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, EPA may need to adjust the amount
of the application fee based on early program implementation
experience. A change in the application fee will not change the total
fees charged, only the initial fee which is credited to the final fee
at closing, or in the event that the project does not proceed to
closing, at withdrawal or denial of the application.
Credit Processing Fee
    EPA will require a credit processing fee at the time of closing, or
in the event that the project does not proceed to closing, e.g., if the
application is withdrawn or denied, for projects selected to submit an
application. The proceeds of any such fees will be used to pay the
remaining portion of EPA's cost of providing credit assistance and the
costs of retaining expert firms, including legal, engineering, and
financial services, in the field of municipal and project finance to
assist in the underwriting of the Federal credit instrument. The
initial application fee described above will be credited to the credit
processing fee. For example, if the total credit processing fee is
$400,000 and the applicant pays $100,000 with the application, $300,000
will be due at closing, or in the event that the project does not
proceed to closing, e.g., if the application is withdrawn or denied.
The total credit processing fee for each project will be set based on
the costs incurred by EPA for that specific project. Due to the nature
of credit processing, the amount is expected to vary among applicants.
This variation is a reflection of the amount of time taken to process a
loan, which may not directly correlate with the size of the loan. More
complicated transactions with lengthy negotiations will have higher
costs. EPA estimates these costs could be in the range of approximately
$350,000-$700,000 per project, broken down as follows:
     Financial advisor: $100,000 to $250,000 per project;
     Law firm: $200,000 to $350,000 per project; and
     Engineering firm: $50,000 to $100,000 per project.
    EPA may waive a portion of the fee charged to an applicant in the
event that Congress appropriates resources adequate to pay for EPA's
cost of administering the WIFIA program as well as additional funding
to pay for loan processing. WIFIA currently provides that EPA may
retain $2.2 million annually from funds appropriated to the program to
pay for the administration of the program, including internal
administrative costs of staffing, program support contracts (separate
from the expert services described previously), and other internal
administrative needs.
    To the extent Congress appropriates administrative funds in excess
of those needed for EPA's internal administrative costs, EPA may use
the remaining available administrative allowance (less any amount
needed for future years' administration) to reduce fees. EPA will
allocate additional administrative funds by reducing fees by an equal
amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a
median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median
household income. If additional administrative funds remain, EPA will
reduce fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects serving a
population of not more than 25,000. If additional administrative funds
still remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount for each
remaining loan.
Servicing Fee
    EPA will charge an annual servicing fee during repayment of the
loan. The fee will be dependent on the costs of servicing the credit
instrument (e.g. collecting and processing loan principal and interest
payments) as determined by the Administrator. Such fees will be set at
a level to enable the Agency to recover all or a portion of the costs
to the Federal Government of servicing WIFIA credit instruments and
will be determined at the time of closing. EPA expects such fees to
range from $12,000 to $15,000 annually per loan.
Optional Supplemental Fee
    EPA may charge a fee, with agreement of the applicant, to reduce
the budget authority required to fund the credit instrument. Although
EPA considers it unlikely that a scenario will arise under which it
would assess such a fee, the Agency sees benefit in establishing the
flexibility to allow an applicant to ``buy down'' the budget authority
required for the credit instrument. This could allow an applicant to
proceed to closing in the event that sufficient budget authority would
not otherwise be available. Such a fee will only be charged upon
agreement by an applicant.
Extraordinary Expenses Fee
    EPA may charge a fee to cover extraordinary expenses in the event
that a borrower experiences difficulty relating to technical,
financial, or legal matters or other events (e.g., engineering failure
or financial workouts) that require EPA to incur time or expenses
beyond standard monitoring. EPA will be entitled to payment in full
from the borrower of additional fees in an amount determined by EPA and
of related fees and expenses of its independent consultants and outside
counsel, that are incurred directly by EPA and not paid directly by the
borrower.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The Agency received comments from eight commenters on the proposed
rule. The comments, including the Agency's responses, are included in
the docket for this rulemaking. Responses to the most significant
comments are included in this section. This section addresses comments
regarding the rationale used to establish the application fee amount
and the method by which EPA will reduce fees in the event additional
sufficient resources are available for such a purpose.

A. Rationale for Establishing Application Fee

    With respect to the establishment of the application fee, and the
lower fee level set for projects serving small communities of under
25,000, one commenter suggested that EPA establish more than two levels
for the application fee. The commenter stated that as proposed, the
application fee for a community of 50,000 would be the same as for a
large metropolitan area. The commenter also suggested an alternative to
setting fee levels by population by basing the fee levels on project
size.
    EPA appreciates the commenters suggestions but will not adopt the
suggestions. The application fee was established at $100,000 in order
to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal analysis of the
project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed
to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the Agency may be
recovered. The reduced fee was established based on the statutory
allowance for project serving communities of under 25,000 to apply for
loans where total eligible costs are at

least $5 million, as opposed to the minimum of $20 million required of
all other applicants. The reduced application fee allows small
communities with fewer resources to begin the application process.
Creating a reduced application fee for such communities logically
follows the statutory allowance for reduced project size for such
communities. Setting application fee levels by project size does not
correlate to the ability of an applicant to pay the application fee.
Small communities with large projects would struggle to pay a much
higher application fee, while large metropolitan areas that can easily
pay the application fee might see a reduced fee.
    Another commenter stated that in order to not discourage
applications for projects serving low-income communities, WIFIA
application fees should be waivable or greatly reduced for those
projects that serve a population with a median household income that is
at least 80 percent or less of the state median household income. The
commenter proposes that economically stressed communities regardless of
size be eligible for application fee waivers or substantial application
fee reduction.
    EPA appreciates the commenters proposal, but will not adopt the
proposal. As previously stated, the application fee was established at
$100,000 in order to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal
analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant
intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the
Agency may be recovered. A reduction or waiver of the application fee
would remove the incentive for communities to proceed to closing by
eliminating the risk of losing the application fee. EPA expects fewer
small community applicants entitled to the reduced fee than applicants
that can show economic stress. If a significant number of applicants
receive an application fee waiver or reduction, EPA will be unable to
begin the financial and legal analysis required for each project
applicant due to limited resources. As previously stated, if sufficient
resources exist for EPA to reduce fees, such resources will be used to
reduce the fees of applicants that serve a population with a median
household income that is at least 80 percent or less of the state
median household income.

B. Methodology To Reduce Fees in the Event Additional Sufficient
Resources Are Available

    In paragraph (f) of the final rule language, EPA has the authority
to reduce the credit processing fee established under paragraph (c), to
the extent that Congress appropriates funds in any given year beyond
those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs. In the
proposed rule, EPA proposed three alternative methods by which the
Agency could allocate additional administrative funds to reduce fees:
     By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan in the
relevant year;
     By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan for those
projects serving a population of not more than 25,000; or
     By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan for those
projects that serve a population with a median household income that is
80 percent or less of the state median household income.
    Alternatively, EPA could allocate such fee reductions through a
combination of these three methods. EPA requested comment on each of
these potential options or other potential approaches. EPA received
three comments related to this request.
    The first commenter suggested that a combination of the three
methods should be used and that EPA should first reduce or eliminate
credit processing fees charged to applicants for projects that
primarily serve a population with a median household income of 80
percent or less of the state median household income. The commenter's
rationale is that this approach will target fee relief toward
communities that are likely facing some of the most significant water
affordability challenges, and whose residents could most benefit from
both low-cost financing and fee relief. The commenter suggested that
any remaining funding available after eliminating credit processing
fees in these low-income communities should be used to reduce the
credit processing fees for all of that year's remaining applicants by a
pro-rata percentage of the total credit processing fees paid by the
applicant. Any forgiveness of credit processing fees should be
calculated on the balance of these fees after the credit for payment of
an application fee has been applied.
    The second commenter suggested that EPA should first reduce the
credit processing fee for communities for whom the fees would impose
the greatest financial hardship. The commenter stated that EPA should
reduce applicant fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects
that serve a population with a median household income that is 80
percent or less of the state median household income. Once fees have
been reduced for hardship communities, any remaining funds should be
used to reduce credit processing fees by an equal amount per loan for
projects serving communities with populations of under 25,000.
    The third commenter suggested that EPA reduce fees on a pro-rata
share based on loan size.
    EPA appreciates the comments received on this important issue and
agrees with the first and second commenters that a combination of
methods should be used to reduce the credit processing fees of
applicants to the extent that Congress appropriates funds in any given
year beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs.
The Agency agrees that the most important use of these additional funds
is to reduce the impact of the fees on the neediest applicants. In
order to reduce the impact of fees on those applicants most in need,
EPA will reduce the credit processing fee, to the extent possible, by
an equal amount per loan, on a dollar basis, for those projects that
serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or
less of the state median household income. If funds remain, EPA will
then reduce fees by an equal amount per loan, on a dollar basis, for
those projects serving a population of not more than 25,000. If funds
still remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount per loan, on a
dollar basis, for all remaining loans. EPA cannot reduce fees as a
percentage of the credit processing fee paid by an applicant because
the total credit processing fee for each loan will not be known until
loan closing.
    EPA appreciates the third commenter's suggestion, but will not
adopt the suggestion. The credit processing fee is not determined by
loan size. The estimated range of the credit processing fee is based on
the complexity of the underlying transaction and the difficulty or
length of time of negotiations. Therefore, between two applicants, one
with a greater loan size may have a smaller fee. Providing greater
relief to applicants charged a smaller fee, irrespective of need, does
not align with the Agency's desire to provide relief to the neediest
applicants.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this rule merely establishes fees associated with a
previously promulgated rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. Participation in the WIFIA loan program
is voluntary. While many projects serving small communities are
potentially eligible for WIFIA loans, we anticipate only one to two
small community applications per year as small communities have access
to below market rate loans and other subsidies through the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and
other funding sources. A small community will only apply and undertake
a WIFIA loan in cases where the WIFIA loan provides positive economic
benefits relative to other potential funding sources, based upon
consideration of relevant economic factors, including loan rate, loan
terms, fees and other transaction costs. I have therefore concluded
that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. While a tribal government, or a consortium of
tribal governments may apply for WIFIA credit assistance, this action
does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes,
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because environmental health or safety risks are not addressed by this
action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This rulemaking simply imposes fees
required to apply for credit assistance; therefore, by itself, this
rulemaking will not have any effect on the supply, distribution or use
of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard.

K. National Environmental Policy Act

    Each project obtaining assistance under this program is required to
adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). This rulemaking simply imposes fees required to
apply for credit assistance; therefore, by itself, this rulemaking will
not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
and Water finance.

    Dated: June 19, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 35 is
amended as follows:

PART 35--STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.;
15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Pub. L. 104-134,
110 Stat. 1321, 1321-299 (1996); Pub. L. 105-65, 111 Stat. 1344,
1373 (1997), 2 CFR 200.

0
2. Add Sec.  35.10080 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.10080  Fees.

    (a) Application fee. EPA will require a non-refundable application
fee for each project applying for credit assistance under the WIFIA
program. An application fee will be due upon submission of the complete
application. For applications for projects serving small communities
(population of not more than 25,000 people), this application fee will
be $25,000. For all other applications, this application fee will be
$100,000. The initial application fee will be credited to the credit
processing fee required under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Adjustment of application fee. For each application and
approval cycle, EPA may adjust the amount of the application fee
described in paragraph (a) of this section based on program
implementation experience and cost expectations. EPA will publish this
amount in each Federal Register solicitation for letters of interest.
    (c) Credit processing fee. Except as otherwise provided in
paragraph (f) of this section, EPA will require an additional credit
processing fee for projects selected to receive WIFIA assistance upon
closing, or in the event that the project does not proceed to closing,
e.g., if the application is

withdrawn or denied. The proceeds of any such fees will be used to pay
the remaining portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit
assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including
financial, engineering, and legal services, in the field of municipal
and project finance, to assist in the underwriting of the Federal
credit instrument. All of, or a portion of, this fee may be waived.
    (d) Servicing fee. EPA will require borrowers to pay a servicing
fee for each credit instrument approved for funding. Separate fees may
apply for each type of credit instrument (e.g., a loan guarantee, a
secured loan with a single disbursement, or a secured loan with
multiple disbursements), depending on the costs of servicing the credit
instrument as determined by the Administrator. Such fees will be set at
a level sufficient to enable the EPA to recover all or a portion of the
costs to the Federal Government of servicing WIFIA credit instruments.
    (e) Optional supplemental fee. If, in any given year, there is
insufficient budget authority to fund the credit instrument for a
qualified project that has been selected to receive assistance under
WIFIA, EPA and the approved applicant may agree upon a supplemental fee
to be paid by or on behalf of the approved applicant at the time of
execution of the term sheet to reduce the subsidy cost of that project.
No such fee may be included among eligible project costs.
    (f) Reduced fees. To the extent that Congress appropriates funds in
any given year beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative
costs, EPA may utilize such appropriated funds to reduce fees that
would otherwise be charged under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (g) Extraordinary expenses. EPA may require payment in full by the
borrower of additional fees, in an amount determined by EPA, and of
related fees and expenses of its independent consultants and outside
counsel, to the extent that such fees and expenses are incurred
directly by EPA and to the extent such third parties are not paid
directly by the borrower, in the event that a borrower experiences
difficulty relating to technical, financial, or legal matters or other
events (e.g., engineering failure or financial workouts) which require
EPA to incur time or expenses beyond standard monitoring.

[FR Doc. 2017-13438 Filed 6-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40367-40368]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13095]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Indy South
Greenwood Airport, Greenwood, Indiana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately 3.2
acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and
to authorize the sale of airport property located at Indy South
Greenwood Airport, Greenwood, IN. The aforementioned land is not needed
for aeronautical use. The subject property is located on the north end
of the airport on the west side of Runway 19 and is proposed to be sold
for the development of a restaurant facility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Melanie Myers, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request may be submitted using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Melanie Myers, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Myers, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number: (847) 294-
7525/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The subject 3.2 acre parcel contains foundations and parking pads
from hangars that were removed in 2016 and

2017. This land was part of the initial purchase of the airport and was
funded by Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant 03-18-0097-02. The
Greenwood Board of Aviation Commissioners, Airport Sponsor of the Indy
South Greenwood Airport proposes to sell this land for the development
of a restaurant facility. The Airport Sponsor has obtained an appraisal
and will receive fair market value for the sale of the land.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Indy South Greenwood Airport,
Greenwood, Indiana from federal land covenants, subject to a
reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on
the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Survey Description

    PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH,
RANGE 4 EAST, PLEASANT TOWNSHIP, JOHNSON COUNTY, INDIANA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
    COMMENCING AT A HARRISON MONUMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1598.94
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 33
SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 748.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 19
MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 446.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 28 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 185.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 88 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 283.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 78.14
FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF
519.63 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH
88 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE
OF 100.08 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 3.221 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS.

    Issued in Des Plaines, IL on June 7, 2023.
Debra L. Bartell,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-13095 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


45812 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 2003 / Notices 5 Id. at P 223. 6 In many cases, the utilities had previously failed to file Power Marketer Quarterly Reports ( the predecessor to the Electric Quarterly Reports). 7 Letter informing Abacus Group Ltd, et al., that to date their Electric Quarterly Reports had not been filed and requesting that the reports for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2002, et al., be filed within 30 days ( April 24, 2003). 8 These public utilities appear to have failed to update their addresses with the Secretary as required in the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.2010( i)( 2) ( 2003). In some cases, they may have gone out of business and failed to file a Notice of Cancellation of their electric market based rate tariff with the Commission. See 18 CFR 35.15 ( 2003). 3. The Commission further stated that, [ t] he Electric Quarterly Reports are designed to satisfy the FPA section 205( c) requirements. For power marketers, the Electric Quarterly Report is intended to replace the current filing of Quarterly Transaction Reports summarizing their market based rate transactions and the filing of long term agreements. Electric Quarterly Reports are also intended to replace the Quarterly Transaction Reports and rate filings required of traditional utilities with market based rate authority. Once this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply with this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities' market based rate authorizations and failure to comply with the requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in their rate authorizations, including possible revocation of their authority to make wholesale power sales at market based rates. 5 4. Commission staff has determined that a number of public utilities that had been granted market based rate authority have failed to file their Electric Quarterly Reports. 6 Commission staff has made a concerted effort to contact non filing utilities in writing and by phone to inform them of their regulatory obligation. Moreover, on April 24, 2003, the Secretary of the Commission sent letters to 423 companies reminding them that they were required to file the Electric Quarterly Report. The letters stated: [ w] ithin thirty ( 30) days of the date of this letter, your company utility must file Electric Quarterly Reports for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Quarters of 2002 and the 1st Quarter of 2003. Failure to do so may result in the Commission's revocation of your market based rate authority in accordance with Order No. 2001. * * * Please provide your immediate attention to this important compliance matter. 7 5. Each of the public utilities listed in the caption of this order was sent this letter but none of them responded. In some cases, the letters were returned unopened. Commission staff called the contacts identified in its power marketer rolls and searched Commission records and the Internet to identify alternate addresses and contacts. Where an alternate address or contact could be identified, a second letter was sent. These letters also received no response. 8 6. Notwithstanding efforts to find the non filing public utilities listed in the caption of this order to remind them of their filing obligations, they have not complied with the requirement to file Electric Quarterly Reports. 7. Accordingly, the market based rate authorizations for those utilities identified in the caption of this order will be withdrawn unless they comply with the Commission's requirements.

The Commission Orders ( A) Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, each public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file its Electric Quarterly Reports for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Quarters of 2002 and the 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2003. If no such filings are made, the Commission will withdraw the public utility's authority to sell power at market based rates and terminate its electric market based rate tariff. ( B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the Federal Register.

By the Commission. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   19703 Filed 8   1   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA   2003   0090; FRL   7539   1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR), EPA ICR Number 1894.04, OMB Control Number 2060   0433 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 3, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OECA   2003   0090, to ( 1) EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari ´ a Malave ´ , Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division ( Mail Code 2223A), Office of Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   7027; fax number: ( 202) 564   0050; e mail address: malave. maria@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 60672), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA   2003   0090, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is: ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to VerDate jul< 14> 2003 19: 01 Aug 01, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04AUN1. SGM 04AUN1 45813 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 2003 / Notices submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comment, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR), EPA ICR Number 1894.04, OMB Control Number 2060   0433. Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, were proposed on February 11, 1999, promulgated on March 23, 2002, with final rule amendments published on December 30, 2002, which addressed concerns raised from two settlements and other amendments. These regulations apply to component processes at secondary aluminum production plants that are major sources and area sources including aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/ decoating kilns, secondary aluminum processing units ( SAPUs) composed of in line fluxers and process furnaces ( including both melting and holding furnaces of various configurations), sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, and rotary dross coolers, commencing construction, or reconstruction after the date of proposal. As a result of a rule amendment in 2002, owners and operators of certain aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extrusion facilities were excluded from the rule coverage. Respondents do not include the owner or operator of any facility that is not a major source of ( Hazardous Air Pollutants) HAP emissions except for those that are area sources of dioxin/ furan emissions. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Office. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 28 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Component processes at secondary aluminum production plants that are major sources and area sources including aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/ decoating kilns, secondary aluminum processing units composed of in line fluxers and process furnaces ( including both melting and holding furnaces of various configurations), sweat furnaces, drossonly furnaces, and rotary dross coolers Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,640. Frequency of Response: initial, semiannual and on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 94,998 hours. Estimated Total Capital and Operations & Maintenance ( O & M) Annual Costs: $ 230,550 which includes $ 88,800 annualized capital/ startup costs and $ 141,750 annual O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 25,230 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in burden is due to a decrease in the number of existing major sources from 86 to 81 and the assumption that existing sources already comply with the initial requirements of the rule. In addition, although we expect an increase of approximately 5 percent in the number of new sweat furnaces ( 74) during the next three years, based on information from manufacturers, the burden associated with this increase will be offset by a decrease of approximately 10 percent in the number of existing sweat furnaces ( 149) which are anticipated to close due to no longer being economically viable. New sources ( i. e., sweat furnaces) will be subject only to the dioxins/ furans requirements of the rule which also accounts for a reduction in the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Dated: July 25, 2003. Doreen Sterling, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   19742 Filed 8   1   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   00   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ SFUND   2003   0004; FRL   7538   9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 2104.01 to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 19: 01 Aug 01, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04AUN1. SGM 04AUN1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72858-72863]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30603]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1255; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-182-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200,
-200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede two existing airworthiness directives
(AD) that apply to Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. The first existing AD currently requires, for certain
airplanes, repetitive inspections of the Station (STA) 348.2 frame to
detect cracking under the stop fittings and intercostal flanges at
stringers S-14L, S-15L, and S-16L, and corrective action if necessary.
The second existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections to
detect cracking of the intercostal webs, attachment clips, and stringer
splice channels, and corrective action if necessary. Since we issued
those ADs, we have received reports of cracking of the STA 348.2 frame
above the two outboard fasteners attaching the frame inner chord and
door stop fittings, and in the outboard chord at stringer S-16L. We
have also received reports of missing fasteners in the STA 348.2 frame
inner chord. This proposed AD would require additional airplanes to do
the inspection for cracking under the stop fittings; extend the
repetitive interval for certain airplanes; add a one-time inspection to
detect missing fasteners; and update or add certain inspection and
repair instructions. This proposed AD would also require, for certain
airplanes, repetitive inspections of the cargo barrier net fitting for
cracking and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also add, for
certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking of the S-15L aft
intercostal, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the intercostals on the forward
and aft sides of the forward entry door cutout, which could result in
loss of the forward entry door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 12,
2012.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone (206) 544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6450; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2011-1255;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-182-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On April 20, 2004, we issued AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69
FR 23646, April 30, 2004), for all Boeing Model 737-200C series
airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the Station (STA)
348.2 frame to detect cracking under the stop fittings and intercostal
flanges at Stringers S-14L, S-15L, and S-16L; and corrective action if
necessary. That AD resulted from a report of cracks in the STA 348.2
frame on a Boeing Model 737-200C series airplane. We issued that AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the intercostals on the forward
and aft sides of the forward entry door cutout, which could result in
the loss of the forward entry door and rapid decompression of the
airplane.
    On July 23, 2009, we issued AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74
FR 38901, August 5, 2009), for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive inspections of the intercostal webs, attachment clips, and
stringer splice channels for cracks; and corrective action if
necessary. That AD resulted from reports of fatigue cracks on several
Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes. We issued that AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the intercostals on the forward and aft
sides of the forward entry door, which could result in loss of the
forward entry door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing ADs Were Issued

    Since we issued AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646,
April 30, 2004), we have received reports of cracking above the two
outboard fasteners attaching the frame inner chord and door stop
fitting of the STA 348.2 frame at S-15L. The cracking was reported on
seven airplanes that had accumulated between 19,185 and 64,800 flight
cycles (AD 2004-09-09 applies only to Model 737-200C airplanes).
Cracking has also been found in the outboard chord at S-16L. In
addition, we have received reports of 10 airplanes with missing
fasteners in the STA 348.2 frame inner chord at S-7L through S-15L.
    In addition, the requirement to inspect the intercostal on the aft
side at S-14L to S-16L is common to both AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-
13598 (69 FR 23646, April 30, 2004), and AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-
15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009). Service history indicates that the
repetitive inspection interval of 6,000 flight cycles for that area, as
required by AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5,
2009), is adequate to ensure continued operational safety. The
repetitive interval required by AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69
FR 23646, April 30, 2004), is 4,500 flight cycles.
    Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received a Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA). We have revised paragraph (h) of this proposed AD
to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of
compliance for any repair required by this AD to the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes ODA rather than a Designated Engineering Representative
(DER).

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2,
dated June 24, 2010. The procedures in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, differ from those in 737-
53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007 (the appropriate source of
service information for AD 2009-16-14 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009)),
as follows:
     Repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking of the S-15L aft intercostal between body
station (BS) 348.2 and BS 360 and a detailed inspection of the cargo
barrier net fitting at the intercostal are added for Model 737-200C
airplanes.
     New repair instructions are added for cracking found at
the S-14L, S-15L, and S-16L intercostals. The repair includes either
doing actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240,
Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010 (described below), or, if a crack is at
the S-15L aft intercostal or the damage at other intercostal locations
is outside certain parameters covered in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1240, Revision 1, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204,
Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions.
    We also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240,
Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010. The procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, differ from
those in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, dated April 10,
2003 (the appropriate source of service information for AD 2004-09-09,
Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646, April 30, 2004)), as follows:
     All Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes (i.e., line numbers 1 through 3132) are added to the
effectivity. For these airplanes, the service bulletin specifies
procedures for inspecting under the stop fitting by doing HFEC and
surface eddy current inspections for cracking of the frame, HFEC
inspections for cracking of the reinforcement angle and shear web, and
doing a detailed inspection for cracking of the STA 348.2 frame outer
chord, inner chord, and reinforcement angle, and corrective actions if
necessary. The corrective actions include replacing certain cracked
parts with new parts, and if a crack is found in the frame outer chord,
contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair.
     For Model 737-200C airplanes, the repetitive interval for
the HFEC inspection of the STA 348.2 frame is extended from 4,500
flight cycles to 6,000 flight cycles.
     For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes, a one-time detailed inspection is added to detect missing
fasteners of the STA 348.2 frame inner chord at S-7L through S-15L. If
any fastener is missing, the service bulletin specifies to contact
Boeing for repair instructions.
     For all airplanes, intercostal inspections for cracking
between STA 348.2 and STA 360 are now specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. Previously, for
the intercostals at S-14 through S-16L, this inspection was common to
both Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204 and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1240 for Model 737-200C airplanes.
     For Group 3 airplanes, instructions are added for repair
of the STA 348.2 frame inner chord, reinforcement angle, and shear web;
and of the door stop intercostals at S-14L through S16L.

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 retain certain requirements of AD 2004-09-
09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646, April 30, 2004) and AD 2009-16-14,
Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009). This proposed AD
would add airplanes to the applicability for the HFEC inspection for
cracking of the stop fittings at the shear web at STA 348.2 frame;
extend the repetitive interval for the HFEC inspection of the STA 348.2
frame for Model 737-200C airplanes; add an inspection to detect missing
fasteners of the STA 348.2 frame inner chord; and update or add certain
inspection and repair instructions. This proposed AD would also require
accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously.''

Changes to Existing ADs

    Since those ADs were issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following tables:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2004-09-09,
  Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646,    Corresponding requirement in this
          April 30, 2004)                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (a)                        paragraph (g)
             paragraph (b)                        paragraph (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2009-16-14,
  Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901,    Corresponding requirement in this
          August 5, 2009)                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (f)                        paragraph (i)
             paragraph (g)                        paragraph (j)
             paragraph (h)                        paragraph (k)
             paragraph (i)                        paragraph (l)
             paragraph (j)                        paragraph (m)
             paragraph (k)                        paragraph (n)
             paragraph (l)                        paragraph (o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 581 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts                              Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost          cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections for cracking under the  18 work-hours x $85           $0  $1,530 [per           $888,930 [per
 stop fittings and intercostal       per hour = $1,530                 inspection cycle].    inspection cycle].
 flanges [retained from AD 2004-09-  [per inspection
 09, Amendment 39[dash]13598 (69     cycle].
 FR 23646, April 30, 2004)].
Inspection of areas forward of the  2 work-hours x $85            $0  $170 [per inspection  $98,770 [per
 aft entry door [retained from AD    per hour = $170 [per              cycle].               inspection cycle].
 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987      inspection cycle].
 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009)].
Inspection of areas aft of the      1 work-hour x $85 per         $0  $85 [per inspection   $49,385 [per
 forward entry door [retained from   hour = $85 [per                   cycle].               inspection cycle].
 AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987   inspection cycle].
 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009)].
Inspection for missing fasteners    1 work-hour x $85 per       $476  $561................  $325,941.
 [new proposed action].              hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                       Labor cost                Parts cost            Cost per  product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair of cracking if done in        Unknown.................  Unknown.................  Unknown.
 accordance with a method approved
 by the FAA.
Repair of cracking if done in        24 work-hours...........  $11,856.................  $13,896.
 accordance with Boeing Alert
 Service Bulletin 737-53A1240.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646, April 30, 2004), and
AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1255; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-182-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
12, 2012.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR
23646, April 30, 2004); and AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR
38901, August 5, 2009).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the STA 348.2
frame above the two outboard fasteners attaching the frame inner
chord and door stop fittings, and in the outboard chord at stringer
S-16L. We have also received reports of missing fasteners in the STA
348.2 frame inner chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the intercostals on the forward and aft
sides of the forward entry door cutout, which could result in loss
of the forward entry door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598
(69 FR 23646, April 30, 2004) With Revised Service Information and
Extended Repetitive Intervals

Initial and Repetitive Inspections at STA 348.2 for Model 737-200C
Series Airplanes

    (g) For Model 737-200C series airplanes: Except as provided by
paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 46,000 total
flight cycles, or within 2,250 flight cycles after June 4, 2004 (the
effective date of AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR 23646,
April 30, 2004)), whichever occurs later, do detailed and eddy
current inspections of the STA 348.2 frame for cracking under the
stop fittings and intercostal flanges at Stringers 14L, 15L, and 16L
by accomplishing paragraphs 3.A. and 3.B.1. through 3.B.7. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1240, dated April 10, 2003, or by accomplishing Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010. Do the actions in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, dated
April 10, 2003; or Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010. Any applicable
repair must be accomplished prior to further flight. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, may
be used.

Corrective Action for Paragraph (g) of This AD

    (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1240, dated April 10, 2003; or Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010;
specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further
flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(t) of this AD.

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987
(74 FR 38901, August 5, 2009) With Revised Service Information

Initial Compliance Time

    (i) For all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Before the
accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight
cycles after November 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-20-03,
Amendment 39-14296 (70 FR 56361, September 27, 2005)), whichever
occurs later: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (k) and (l)
of this AD.
    (j) For all Model 737-200C series airplanes, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March
26, 2007: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or
within 4,500 flight cycles after September 9, 2009 (the effective
date of AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR 38901, August 5,
2009)), whichever occurs later, do the inspection required by
paragraph (m) of this AD.

Initial Inspection for Group 1 Configuration Airplanes

    (k) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007: Perform a
detailed inspection for cracking of the intercostal web, attachment
clips, and stringer splice channels; and a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the stringer splice
channels located forward and aft of the forward entry door; and do
all applicable corrective actions before further flight; in
accordance with Parts 1 and 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003;
or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated
March 26, 2007; or in accordance with Parts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204,
Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. After September 9, 2009 and until
the effective date of this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Revision 2, dated June
24, 2010; may be used. As of the effective date of this AD, only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June
24, 2010, may be used.

Initial Inspection for Cargo Configuration Airplanes (Forward of the
Forward Entry Door)

    (l) For Group 2 cargo airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007:
Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the intercostal webs
and attachment clips located forward of the forward entry door, and
do all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March
26, 2007; or in accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. After
September 9, 2009 and until the effective date of this AD, Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26,
2007; or Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; may be used. As of the
effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used.

Initial Inspection for Cargo Configuration Airplanes (Aft of the
Forward Entry Door)

    (m) For Group 2 cargo airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007:
Perform a detailed inspection for cracking of the intercostal webs
and attachment clips located aft of the forward entry door, and do
all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in
accordance with Part 4 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or
in accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010. As of the effective date
of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision
2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used.

Repeat Inspections

    (n) Repeat the inspections required by paragraphs (k), (l), and
(m) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles after the previous inspection, or within 3,000 flight cycles
after September 9, 2009, whichever occurs later.

Exceptions to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53A1204

    (o) Do the actions required by paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l),
(m), and (n) of this AD by accomplishing all the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March 26,
2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2,
dated June 24, 2010; except as provided by paragraphs (o)(1) and
(o)(2) of this AD. After September 9, 2009, and until the effective
date of this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision
1, dated March 26, 2007; or Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; may be
used. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010, may be used.
    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204,
dated June 19, 2003; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204,
Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010; specifies to contact
Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (t) of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204,
dated June 19, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204,
Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; specifies a compliance time
relative to the date of a service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance relative to September 9, 2009. Where Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1204, dated June 19, 2003; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 1, dated March
26, 2007; specifies a compliance time relative to the date of the
initial release of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance
relative to November 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-20-03,
Amendment 39-14296 (70 FR 56361, September 27, 2005)).

New Requirements of This AD

One-Time Inspection for Missing Fasteners at STA 348.2

    (p) For Groups 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010:
Within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection to detect missing fasteners of the STA 348.2
frame, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010,
except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD. If any fastener is
missing, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this
AD.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections at STA 348.2 for Model 737-100, -
200, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

    (q) For Groups 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010:
Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles or within
4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do HFEC and
surface eddy current inspections for cracking of the frame, HFEC
inspections for cracking of the reinforcement angle and shear web,
and a detailed inspection for cracking of the STA 348.2 frame outer
chord, inner chord, and reinforcement angle, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1240, Revision 1, dated June 29, 2010, except as required by
paragraph (r) of this AD. If any crack is found during any
inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, do all
applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision
1, dated June 29, 2010, except as required by paragraph (r) of this
AD, and except where that service bulletin specifies to contact
Boeing, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (t) of this
AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6,000 flight cycles.

Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240

    (r) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1240, Revision 1,
dated June 29, 2010, specifies that for the instructions identified
in paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, and the Figure(s) which give
the recommended sequence of steps, the sequence of the steps to do
the service bulletin can be changed; the requirements in this AD do
not allow the sequence of the steps to be changed.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections of the S-15L Aft Intercostal and
Cargo Barrier Net Fitting for Model 737-200C Series Airplanes

    (s) For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June 24, 2010: Before the
accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
do initial detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking of the S-15L
aft intercostal between BS 348.2 and BS 360, and do a detailed
inspection of the cargo barrier net fitting at the intercostal, in
accordance with Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1204, Revision 2, dated June
24, 2010. If any cracking is found, before further flight repair
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (t) of this AD. Repeat the inspections at intervals not
to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (t)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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, it may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-09-09, Amendment 39-13598 (69 FR
23646, April 30, 2004), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements of this AD.
    (5) AMOCs approved for AD 2009-16-14, Amendment 39-15987 (74 FR
38901, August 5, 2009), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

Related Information

    (u) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone (425)
917-6450; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (v) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 18, 2011.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30603 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P