Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-05-21 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

26,589 words·~121 min read·/register/2008/05/21/08-1274

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0037; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-41-AD; Amendment 39-15521; AD 2008-10-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG.
(RRD)TAY 650-15 Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Strip results from some of the engines listed in the applicability section of this directive revealed excessively corroded low pressure turbine disks stage 2 and stage 3. The corrosion is considered to be caused by the environment in which these engines are operated. Following a life assessment based on the strip findings it is concluded that inspections for corrosion attack are required. The action specified by this AD is intended to avoid a failure of a low pressure turbine disk stage 2 or stage 3 due to potential corrosion problems which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect corrosion that could cause stage 2 or stage 3 disk of the low pressure turbine to fail and result in an uncontained failure of the engine. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *jason.yang@faa.gov;* telephone
(781)238-7747; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 75). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that: Strip results from some of the engines listed in the applicability section of this directive revealed excessively corroded low pressure turbine disks stage 2 and stage 3. The corrosion is considered to be caused by the environment in which these engines are operated. Following a life assessment based on the strip findings it is concluded that inspections for corrosion attack are required. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Editorial Change To Clarify the Actions and Compliance Section We added the revision date of September 1, 2006, to paragraph (e)(1) to clarify the requirements to that paragraph. Also, we added Tasks 72-52-23-200-000 and 72-52-24-200-000 to paragraph (e)(3) to clarify the requirements of that paragraph. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about two engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.0 work-hours per product to inspect the disk, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. If corrosion is found, we estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours to replace the disk. Required parts would cost about $40,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $80,480. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this 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. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-10-14 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD)(formerly Rolls-Royce plc, Derby, England):** Amendment 39-15521. FAA-2007-0037; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-41-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to RRD TAY 650-15 turbofan engines that have a serial number listed in Table 1 of this AD, and low pressure turbine module M05300AA installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. Table 1.—Affected TAY 650-15 Engines by Serial Number Engine Serial No. 17251 17255 17256 17273 17275 17280 17281 17282 17300 17301 17327 17332 17365 17393 17437 17443 17470 17520 17521 17523 17539 17542 17556 17561 17562 17563 17580 17581 17612 17618 17635 17637 17645 17661 17686 17699 17701 17702 17736 17737 17738 17739 17741 17742 17808 Reason
(d)Strip results from some of the engines listed in the applicability section of this directive revealed excessively corroded low pressure turbine disks stage 2 and stage 3. The corrosion is considered to be caused by the environment in which these engines are operated. Following a life assessment based on the strip findings it is concluded that inspections for corrosion attack are required. The action specified by this AD is intended to avoid a failure of a low pressure turbine disk stage 2 or stage 3 due to potential corrosion problems which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect corrosion that could cause stage 2 or stage 3 disk of the low pressure turbine to fail and result in an uncontained failure of the engine. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Prior to accumulating 11,700 flight cycles
(FC)since new, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 11,700 FC of the engine, inspect the low pressure turbine disks stage 2 and stage 3 for corrosion in accordance with RRD Alert Service Bulletin TAY-72-A1524, Revision 1, dated September 1, 2006.
(2)For engines that already exceed 11,700 FC on the effective date of this AD, perform the inspection within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3)When, during any of the inspections as required by paragraph (e)(1) of this directive, corrosion is found, replace the affected parts. The RRD TAY 650 Engine Manual—E-TAY-3RR, Tasks 72-52-23-200-000 and 72-52-24-200-000 contains information on performing the inspection for corrosion and rejection criteria. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(g)Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0288, dated September 15, 2006, and RRD Alert Service Bulletin TAY-72-A1524, Revision 1, dated September 1, 2006, for related information.
(h)Contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *jason.yang@faa.gov;* telephone
(781)238-7747; fax
(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Rolls-Royce Deutschland Alert Service Bulletin TAY-72-A1524, Revision 1, dated September 1, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlwitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; telephone 49
(0)33-7086-1768; fax 49
(0)33-7086-3356.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 5, 2008. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10633 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD; Amendment 39-15525; AD 2008-11-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Document D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007, as listed in this AD, on May 27, 2008 (73 FR 21237, April 21, 2008). ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6440; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50294). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the one commenter. Request To Allow Alternative Inspections for Previously Repaired/Altered Structure Boeing requests that the NPRM be revised to include a provision for alternative inspections when a repair area prohibits operators from doing the inspections required by paragraph
(i)of the NPRM. Boeing requests that the initial alternative inspection be done within 12 months after the repair is discovered during the initial inspection required by paragraph
(i)of the NPRM. Boeing points out that a similar provision was provided in paragraph
(e)of AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999). Boeing states that including such a provision will assist operators. We agree. We have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD (and reidentified subsequent paragraphs) that provides for alternative inspections to those in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Request To Clarify Certain Sections of the Preamble of the NPRM Boeing requests that certain sections in the preamble of the NPRM be clarified for the following reasons: 1. Boeing states that Advisory Circular
(AC)No. 91-56, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,” dated May 6, 1981, applies to airplanes certified under the fail-safe and fatigue requirements of Civil Air Regulations
(CAR)4b or part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25), not damage tolerance structural requirements as stated in the Issuance of Advisory Circular
(AC)section. 2. Boeing notes that the Other Relevant Rulemaking section identifies the strut as one of the affected SSIs for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Boeing states that those airplanes do not have an engine strut. 3. Boeing states that Boeing Document D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007 (referred to in the NPRM as an appropriate source of service information for the required actions), does not describe procedures for repairing cracked structure, as specified in the Relevant Service Information section. We partially agree. We agree with Boeing that the identified sections should be clarified. However, we find that no change to the final rule is necessary, since the identified sections of the NPRM do not reappear in the final rule. Explanation of Change to Reported Incidents We have revised the AD to specify that this AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking only. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance The requirements for the baseline structure of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes are currently described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 129.109(b)(1), not in 14 CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16 as indicated in the third paragraph of the Cost of Compliance section of the NPRM. Therefore, we have revised the Costs of Compliance section of the AD accordingly. Explanation of Editorial Changes We have revised the title of Boeing Document D6-37089-1 from “Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes” to “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes” in this AD. In addition, we have revised “Appendix” to “Appendix A” in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 676 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revision of maintenance inspection program 200 per operator (23 U.S. operators) $80 $16,000 per operator 118 $368,000. Inspections 150 per airplane 80 $12,000, per airplane, per inspection cycle 118 $1,416,000 per inspection cycle. The number of work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this AD is to be conducted as “stand alone” actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional work hours will be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling will be minimal. Further, compliance with this AD would be a means of compliance with the aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) for the baseline structure of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD will meet the requirements of these CFR sections for the baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-11-03 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15525. Docket No. FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information
(f)The term “Revision E,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Document D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007.
(g)The term “Appendix A,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Document D6-37089-1 “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, of Revision E. Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program
(h)Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating
(DTR)for each structural significant item
(SSI)listed in Section 3.0, “Flap and Support Structure (Flap Structure) SSI Information,” of Appendix A. (The required DTR value for each SSI is listed in Appendix A.) The revision to the maintenance inspection program must include and must be implemented in accordance with the procedures in Section 3.0 of Appendix A, and in accordance with the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating
(DTR)System Application,” and Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting” of Revision E. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Initial and Repetitive Inspections
(i)Except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD: Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the applicable initial inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in accordance with Appendix A. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the intervals necessary to obtain the required DTR specified in Appendix A.
(j)For any SSI that has been repaired or altered before the effective date of this AD such that the repair or design change affects your ability to accomplish the actions required by paragraph
(i)of this AD: Before further flight, you must request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)in accordance with section 39.17 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.17), or do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD as an approved means of compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(i)of this AD.
(1)At the initial compliance time specified in paragraph
(i)of the AD, identify each repair or design change to that SSI.
(2)Within 12 months after the identification of a repair or design change required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, assess the damage tolerance characteristics of each SSI affected by each repair or design change to determine the effectiveness of the applicable Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID)inspection for that SSI and if not effective, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include a damage-tolerance-based alternative inspection program for each affected SSI. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in accordance with the alternative inspection program. The inspection method and compliance times (i.e., threshold and repeat intervals) of the alternative inspection program must be approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m)of this AD. Repair
(k)If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(i)or
(j)of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracked structure using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m)of this AD. Inspection Program for Transferred Airplanes
(l)Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI must be done by the new operator in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule and inspection method.
(2)For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI required by this AD must be done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an inspection method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the new operator's schedule. AMOCs (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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 an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(n)You must use Boeing Document D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007; and Boeing Document D6-37089-1 “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)Boeing Document D6-37089-1 contains these errors: Pages REF 1 and REF 2 of the Reference Section and pages L-19.1 and L-19.2 of Section 4.0, as specified in the List of Effective Pages, do not exist.
(2)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Document D6-37089-1 “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(3)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Document D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007, on May 27, 2008 (73 FR 21237, April 21, 2008).
(4)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(5)You may review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10977 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0181; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-180-AD; Amendment 39-15524; AD 2008-11-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Lockheed Model L-1011 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the accomplishment of certain fuel system modifications, the initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel system limitations to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Continued Airworthiness Project Office, Attention: Airworthiness, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063-0567. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Bosak, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone
(770)703-6094; fax
(770)703-6097. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that would apply to all Lockheed Model L-1011 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9235). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the accomplishment of certain fuel system modifications, the initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel system limitations
(FSLs)to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the one commenter. Request To Supersede AD 2001-08-21, Amendment 39-12198 ATA Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM by removing the proposed requirement to accomplish the FSL specified in paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008. (Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2006, for accomplishing that FSL.) The commenter further requests that we instead issue a separate rulemaking action to supersede AD 2001-08-21 (66 FR 21072, April 27, 2001) to require the accomplishment of Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094. (As stated in the NPRM, AD 2001-08-21 requires the accomplishment of the original issue of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, dated March 3, 2000, but more work is necessary for Revision 1 of the service bulletin.) We agree that it is more appropriate to require the accomplishment of Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094 by superseding AD 2001-08-21. Our current policy specifies that, whenever a “substantive change” is made to an existing AD that imposes a new burden, we must supersede the AD. “Substantive changes” are those made to any instruction or reference that affects the substance of the AD. Substantive changes include part numbers, service bulletin and manual references, compliance times, applicability, methods of compliance, corrective action, inspection requirements, and effective dates. We consider the changes in Revision 1 of the service bulletin to be substantive. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs
(h)and
(i)and Table 2 of this AD by removing references to paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094. Further, we will consider superseding AD 2001-08-21 with a separate rulemaking action. Request To Extend the Compliance Time for Certain Actions ATA Airlines requests that we extend the compliance time for accomplishing the FSLs in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(d), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, to the following: on or before the next heavy maintenance inspection after the effective date of the AD, but not to exceed 60 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter recommends revising the compliance time by either adding a compliance time, initial threshold, and grace period to Table 2 of the NPRM, or removing Table 2 from the NPRM and issuing separate rulemaking actions to address those FSLs. The commenter also requests that we include a note in the AD to define a heavy maintenance inspection as equivalent to a “D” check and similar to the definition in the Lockheed L-1011 Maintenance Review Board Report, dated March 1, 1998. As justification for its request, the commenter states that the NPRM is inconsistent with other rulemaking actions addressing other airplane models. The commenter also states that those other rulemaking actions are consistent with the guidance in FAA Policy Memorandum PS-ANM112-05-001, “Policy Statement on Process for Developing SFAR 88-Related Instructions for Maintenance and Inspection of Fuel Tank Systems,” dated October 6, 2004. In support of its position, the commenter refers to paragraphs 3.D, 3.D.1, and 4 of that policy memorandum, and to the “Four-Element Unsafe Condition Evaluation Criteria” section of FAA Policy Memorandum PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Design Criteria,” dated February 25, 2003. The commenter contends that each identified unsafe condition and the AWL changes should be issued as separate rulemaking actions. The commenter also contends that it would be unduly and disproportionately impacted by the proposed requirements of the NPRM. The commenter states that, for other airplane models, we have issued separate rulemaking actions to address design changes and the incorporation of AWLs for fuel tank systems into the FAA-approved maintenance program. The commenter also states that, in some instances, we have provided a compliance time of up to 5 years for accomplishing the design changes. The commenter, therefore, asserts that requiring the accomplishment of the design changes identified in Table 2 of the NPRM by December 16, 2008, is a substantial, immediate burden. The commenter also asserts that paragraph
(h)of the NPRM effectively makes the service bulletins identified in Table 2 of the NPRM retroactively applicable. The commenter notes that Table 2 does not include the compliance times recommended in those service bulletins. ATA Airlines believes that, as written, the NPRM would effectively make the compliance recommendation of up to 2-year-old service documents rule. As an example, the commenter points to Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-096, dated June 8, 2004, which recommends doing the initial inspection of the wiring harnesses of the No. 1 and No. 3 engine tank valves on or before the next heavy maintenance inspection, but not to exceed 5 years from the date of the service bulletin. That service bulletin also recommends revising the maintenance planning documentation to require repeating the inspection at intervals not to exceed 10 years from the date of the last inspection. The commenter states that, upon issuance of the final rule, an operator is at risk of non-compliance, since it is possible for an airplane to have undergone a heavy maintenance inspection between publication of the service bulletin and the effective date of the AD without having accomplished the actions specified in the service bulletin. We agree to extend the compliance time for accomplishing the design changes identified in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(d), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1. We have added a new paragraph (h)(2) specifying that the FSLs in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) must be done within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. As stated previously, we have removed the requirement to accomplish the FSL in paragraph 2.B.(1)(d) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1. However, we disagree with issuing separate ADs to address the other design changes identified in Table 2 of this AD. The policy memorandum to which the commenter refers to does not specify that the design changes must be addressed by separate rulemaking actions. We also point out that when the compliance time in an AD differs from the recommended compliance time in a service bulletin, operators are required to comply with the compliance time specified in the AD, not the service bulletin. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Extend the Compliance Time of Paragraph
(g)ATA Airlines requests that we extend the compliance time by 1 year to December 16, 2009 in paragraph
(g)of the NPRM. The commenter states that the airplane manufacturers of other airplane models have provided comprehensive data to support operators in complying with a compliance date of December 16, 2008. As an example, the commenter refers to Docket Nos. FAA-2006-26710, FAA-2007-28383, and FAA-2007-28384 published on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The commenter states that those NPRMs all refer to comprehensive maintenance planning documents provided by the airplane manufacturer, and that those NPRMs provide explicit thresholds and grace periods for accomplishing many of the AWLs for fuel tank systems. The commenter also states that the airplane manufacturer either has or is providing comprehensive revisions to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)to address critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) and other SFAR 88 findings. The commenter asserts that Lockheed has not provided the same level of support, which substantially increases the burden on operators. The commenter believes that, as a result of the manner and timeliness of the data provided for the Model L-1011 series airplanes, it is appropriate and justifiable to provide a 12-month grace period for operators to amend their maintenance programs. We disagree with extending the compliance time for paragraph
(g)of this AD. We have determined that Lockheed has met the minimum requirements for supporting operators in complying with the SFAR 88 requirements. Further, in other similar NPRMs for other airplane models, we have not provided a grace period for revising the FAA-approved maintenance program or the AWLs section of ICA, as applicable, to incorporate AWLs for fuel tank systems. As stated in the preambles of those NPRMs, we have already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for efficient and coordinated implementation of these regulations and those NPRMs, we are using this same compliance date. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Extend the Comment Period ATA Airlines requests that we extend the comment period for a minimum of 30 days. As justification, the commenter states that Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, was not available to operators until 9 days after the NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** . We disagree with extending the comment period. We have attempted to contact this commenter to better understand its needs and rationale with regard to extending the comment period. However, we have been unable to reach the commenter after numerous attempts. To further delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and it must be addressed to ensure continued safety. Request To Revise Paragraph
(b)ATA Airlines notes that paragraph
(b)of the NPRM specifies that no other airworthiness directives are affected by the NPRM. The commenter believes that this is incorrect because Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, refers to AD 80-25-04, amendment 39-3983 (45 FR 79011, November 28, 1980); AD 99-24-12, amendment 39-11436 (64 FR 66756, November 30, 1999); and AD 2001-08-21. (AD 80-25-04 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-062, Revision 1, dated August 20, 1980. AD 99-24-12 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-093, Revision 1, dated February 8, 1999. AD 2001-08-21 requires accomplishing the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-094, dated March 3, 2000.) The commenter states that AD 2001-08-21 should be identified as a superseded AD, according to paragraph 121.b. of Section 12 of the “Airworthiness Directives Manual,” FAA-IR-M-8040.1A. We infer the commenter requests that we revise paragraph
(b)of this AD to specify that this AD is related to AD 80-25-04 and AD 99-24-12, and that it supersedes AD 2001-08-21. We disagree with revising paragraph
(b)of this AD. Paragraph
(b)of an AD is reserved for referencing any previously issued AD that is revised or superseded by a new AD. As stated previously, we will consider superseding AD 2001-08-21 with a separate rulemaking action. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Change Made to This AD We have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the FSLs and CDCCLs specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(h)of this AD. In the NPRM, we inadvertently omitted reference to paragraph (h). Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 108 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Maintenance program revision to incorporate FSLs and CDCCLs 4 None $320 63 $20,160 Removal of auxiliary fuel tank No. 4, if applicable 40 None 3,200 8 25,600 Modification and inspection of the wiring harnesses of the fuel level control switch 19 974 2,494 63 157,122 Inspection of the airplane fuel tanks, vent boxes, and bonding jumpers, and the addition of bonding jumpers to the fuel/vent tube fittings 370 18,491 48,091 63 3,029,733 Identification and inspection of the FQIS wiring harnesses 4 336 656 63 41,328 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-11-02 Lockheed:** Amendment 39-15524. Docket No. FAA-2008-0181; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-180-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Lockheed Model L-1011 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)in accordance with paragraph
(k)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of 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. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008. Maintenance Program Revision
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the fuel system limitations
(FSLs)specified in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(b), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of the service bulletin, and the critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in paragraph 2.C. of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(h)of this AD.
(1)Where the FSLs specify to inspect, this AD would require doing a general visual inspection. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(2)For the CDCCLs specified in paragraphs 2.C.(2)(c), 2.C.(2)(d), and 2.C.(15)(a) of the service bulletin, do the applicable actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. The applicable service information listed in Table 1 of this AD is one approved method. Table 1.—Approved Methods for Certain CDCCLs For the CDCCL identified in the service bulletin in paragraph— One approved method is— For— 2.C.(2)(c) Hamilton Sundstrand Overhaul Manual 28-24-03, Revision 14, dated May 15, 2000 Overhauling and repairing the electrically-operated fuel boost pumps. 2.C.(2)(d) Lockheed L-1011 Service Information Letter 28-12, dated March 17, 1998 Keeping the electrical conduit for the electrically-operated fuel boost pumps open and unplugged at the wing rear spar. 2.C.(15)(a) Lockheed Drawing 1527514, Revision D, dated September 26, 1981 Installing the fuel tank valves, auxiliary power unit pump, sight gauges, fuel quantity indicating system tank units, over-wing filler cap adapter ring, boost pump mounting plate, and access doors for the boost pump, vent box, vent valve, and fuel level control switch. Initial Accomplishment of FSLs and Repair if Necessary
(h)At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do the applicable FSLs specified in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(b), 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of the service bulletin and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with the service bulletin. Any repair must be done before further flight.
(1)For the FSL identified in paragraph 2.B.(1)(b) of the service bulletin, do the FSL before December 16, 2008.
(2)For the FSLs identified in paragraphs 2.B.(1)(e), 2.B.(1)(f), and 2.B.(1)(g) of the service bulletin, do the applicable FSLs within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. Note 3: The service bulletin refers to the service information listed in Table 2 of this AD as additional sources of service information for doing the FSLs and repair. Table 2.—Additional Sources of Service Information for Certain FSLs The FSL identified in the service bulletin in paragraph— Refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin— For— 2.B.(1)(b) 093-28-089, Revision 3, dated October 4, 2006 (or later) Removing auxiliary fuel tank No. 4, if applicable. 2.B.(1)(e) 093-28-095, dated September 13, 2006 (or later) Inspecting the airplane fuel tanks and vent boxes for cleanliness and evidence of deteriorated or damaged fuel/vent tubes and components; inspecting bonding jumpers for proper installation, corrosion, frayed or broken strands, and the condition of the environmental sealing or bonding clamps and hardware; correcting any discrepant conditions; adding bonding jumpers to the fuel/vent tube fittings; and inspecting the bonding jumpers on the fuel/vent tube fittings. 2.B.(1)(f) 093-28-096, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006 (or later) Inspecting the wiring harnesses of the No. 1 and No. 3 engine tank valves for evidence of damage and fuel contamination; replacing any damaged wire with new wire; and repairing or replacing any contaminated wires as applicable. 2.B.(1)(g) 093-28-097, dated August 3, 2006 (or later) Identifying the wiring harnesses for the fuel quantity indicator system (FQIS); inspecting the FQIS wiring harnesses for any visible damage, wear, chafing, or indications of electrical arcing; and replacing or repairing any damaged wires as applicable. No Reporting Requirement
(i)Although Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-095, dated September 13, 2006; Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-096, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006; and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-097, dated August 3, 2006; specify to notify Lockheed of any discrepancies found during inspection or any evidence of damage or wire replacement, this AD does not require that action. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs
(j)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of the service bulletin that is approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-28-098, Revision 1, dated January 22, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Continued Airworthiness Project Office, Attention: Airworthiness, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063-0567.
(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10975 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28388; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD; Amendment 39-15523; AD 2008-11-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD would also require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6497; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36391). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has published Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008 (hereafter referred to as “Revision April 2008 of the MPD”). The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision April 2008 of the MPD adds additional component maintenance manual
(CMM)information to AWL No. 28-AWL-06. Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision April 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006 through March 2008 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Revision April 2008 of the MPD specifies that the repetitive task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 25,000 flight hours or 6 years, whichever comes first. However, we have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to specify that the repetitive task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 72 months only. The 25,000-flight-hour interval will be removed from that AWL in a future revision to the MPD. We have also revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-05 in Table 1 of this AD. In Revision March 2008 of the MPD, Boeing removed the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. Therefore, we have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from the initial threshold of AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of this AD and revised the initial threshold to within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Operators should note that, in Revision March 2008 of the MPD, Boeing also revised AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations. In Revision October 2007 of the MPD, Boeing revised the contents of Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” of the MPD. The fuel system AWLs were removed from Subsection D and placed into a new Subsection E, “PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS.” Therefore, we have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to require the incorporation of both Subsections D and E of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 were added to Revision October 2007 of the MPD; we might issue additional rulemaking to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Other Changes Made to This AD We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to clarify that the actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of the Revision April 2008 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the required inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters. Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program Japan Airlines
(JAL)requests that we revise paragraph
(h)of the NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA-approved maintenance program to include the initial inspections and repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that the NPRM would require accomplishing the initial inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which would require JAL to establish a special inspection and special recordkeeping for the proposed requirement. The compliance times specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD are intended to provide a grace period for those airplanes that have already exceeded the specified threshold in the MPD. To be in compliance with the recording requirements of this AD, operators must record their compliance with the initial inspection for those airplanes over the specified threshold. We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for Model 767 airplanes. Qantas Airways also requests that the 36,000-flight-hour parameter be removed from the inspection interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26. The commenter states that the flight-hour parameter does not adequately take into account actual airplane usage, and that its long haul utilization of the airplane is 4,000 flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states that an AWL task due at 36,000 flight hours would need to be done in 9 years instead of 12 years. Qantas Airways notes an inconsistency between the inspection interval specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD and the compliance threshold specified in Table 1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within a certain number of flight cycles or a certain number of months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. Qantas Airways would welcome the change from “flight hours” to “flight cycles,” if the flight-hour parameter is not deleted from the inspection intervals specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD. We have reviewed the commenter's requests, and we agree to revise the compliance threshold for certain AWLs as identified by the commenters. As stated previously, Revision April 2008 of the MPD gives the repetitive intervals in calendar time. We have revised the threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD accordingly. Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, the task descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02 is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external wires over the center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the task descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number. We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02 should be harmonized. Revision April 2008 of the MPD includes a revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which addresses JAL's comments. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to Revision April 2008 of the MPD. Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for Certain AWLs Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways state that the loop resistance values for AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWLs No. 28-AWL-18 and No. 28-AWL-26 in accordance with Revision April 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Correct Typographical Error in NPRM Boeing requests that we correct typographical errors in Table 1 of NPRM. Boeing states that the digit “2” is missing from AWLs No. 28-AWL-05, No. 28-AWL-18, and No. 28-AWL-26 in Table 1 of the NPRM. We agree that those typographical errors were published in the **Federal Register** version of the NPRM. Since those errors occurred during publication of the NPRM, we notified the **Federal Register** about those errors on July 3, 2007. The errors should be corrected when this AD is published in the **Federal Register** . Request To Delegate Authority for Allowing Use of Equivalent Tools, Components, Materials, and Equipment ABX Air requests that we delegate authority to a designated engineering representative
(DER)or delegation option authorization
(DOA)organization to approve the use of equivalent tools, components, materials, and equipment for cases where the CMM does not state that an equivalent item may be used. ABX Air believes that requiring approval from the Seattle ACO for equivalent items not cited in the CMMs will create an undue burden on operators. ABX Air states that there are instances when a part or material called out in a CMM is unavailable on the market, but an acceptable equivalent item is available; the commenter states that it would be impossible to obtain approval from the Seattle ACO for the equivalent item in a timely manner. ABX Air also states that there are instances where there are common equivalent items to items specified in a CMM. As an example, ABX Air points to a certain CMM that lists the part number for a required notebook sheet protector. ABX Air states that, according to the NPRM, a different notebook sheet protector cannot be used unless it is approved by the Seattle ACO. ABX Air believes that government regulation to this level is unmanageable and does not provide an increased level of safety. ABX Air also states that requiring a specific manufacturer of voltmeters, common hardware, etc., does not add to the safety of the fleet of Model 767 airplanes. ABX Air also requests that we allow an operator or repair station to acquire and use an equivalent item without Seattle ACO approval, when the CMM states that the equivalent items may be used and the operator or repair station has procedures for determining equivalents. JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools and chemical materials according to the CMMs. JAL states that normally operators can use equivalents without FAA approval when the CMM specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL also states that it has received further clarification from Boeing specifying that unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number or certain chemicals by name, an operator can continue to use equivalent tools or materials according to the CMMs. We acknowledge the commenters' requests and are working with Boeing to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be inappropriate. We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent items, operators and repair stations may use equivalents. We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels specified in Revision April 2008 of the MPD, including the use of equivalent tools or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are allowed. If the CMM does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be used. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. However, we disagree that DER/DOA organizations may approve equivalent items if the CMM does not specifically allow equivalents because current FAA Orders do not allow us to delegate approval of changes to airworthiness limitations. The FAA is considering granting a deviation from the order to allow manufacturer DER/DOA organizations to approve CMMs in the future. Until such deviation is in place, all CMM changes must be approved by the Seattle ACO. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Revise Appendix 1 Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM to reference additional ATA sections, add additional airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)task titles and numbers, and correct certain AMM task titles and numbers. The affected AWLs are No. 28-AWL-02, No. 28-AWL-03, No. 28-AWL-07, No. 28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-12, No. 28-AWL-13, No. 28-AWL-17, No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-26. JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all AWLs specified in the MPD, and that we indicate how to maintain the latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we correct the following error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For AWL No. 28-AWL-04, change “SWPM 20-10-15” to “SWPM 20-10-13.” We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion. Further, Revision April 2008 of the MPD contains most of the updated information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we have removed Appendix 1 from this AD. Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter states that if it does the inspection and does not reach the specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan to do this inspection during an overhaul. We infer that the commenter requests that we extend the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in Table 1 of this AD to allow accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled “4C” check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 144 months (as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard. Request To Extend the Exceptional Short-Term Extension Qantas Airways requests that we allow exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less, for AWL tasks. The commenter believes that the exceptional short-term extension of 30 days, which is specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, is too small for AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The commenter states that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program mandated by AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990), operators were given a provision to invoke exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less. The commenter states that this is a more appropriate magnitude because operators are often permitted one-time exceptional extensions to maintenance checks and tasks of this proportion. The commenter also states that limiting the extension period to 30 days means that a “4C” check can never be extended by more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL inspections outside of a “4C” check. We disagree with the commenter's request because exceptional short-term extensions are, in essence, pre-approved extensions without Seattle ACO review of the specifics of the situation. We consider that the ability to extend the interval without further approval for 30 days should be sufficient for most circumstances. However, if an operator finds that it needs an extension longer than 30 days, with appropriate justification one may be requested from the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority. Longer extensions may be granted on a case-by-case basis because, as Qantas Airways points out, the task interval is long, and the FAA is interested in limiting out-of-sequence work. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM JAL requests that we revise the NPRM to require incorporation of the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing AMM allowing operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later revisions. JAL states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators cannot find what revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated into the operator's AMM in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the NPRM. JAL also states that it could take several weeks to incorporate the manufacturer's AMM. JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states that the MPD notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the NPRM it is acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance. We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision April 2008 of the MPD. However, complying with the AWL inspections or CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM revisions. In the U.S., operators are not required to use original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)maintenance manuals. Operators may develop their own manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight Standards Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators, most of the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as maximum bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The FAA Flight Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that contain all of the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no need to require operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals. Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in the “Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an appropriate FAA PMI or PAI, by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals.” If changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL, they may be made using an operator's normal process without approval of the Seattle ACO, as long as the change maintains the information specified in the AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all the critical information into the MPD. This avoids duplication of a large amount of information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a specific revision of the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those CMMs. Any changes to the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO. Request To Revise Note 2 Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 2 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards All Nippon Airways
(ANA)requests that we delete the words “and task card,” unless the task card references are listed in Subsection D of the MPD or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Operators that do not use Boeing's revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.” ANA believes that if a task card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, then highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are already highlighted in the AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the AMM. ANA further states that the applicable task card references are not listed in Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the NPRM; they refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult to find out or distinguish the affected task card. JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not responsible for the requirements of the AD. We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure compliance with the new AWLs. In the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, we were only suggesting, not requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards JAL requests that we clarify whether “task cards,” as found in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an operator's unique task cards. We intended that “task cards” mean both Boeing and an operator's unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval
(PMA)Parts ANA requests that we delete the words “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts),” unless a continuous supply of CMM-specified parts is warranted or the FAA is open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained in the CMMs needs to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority.” ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied. ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a component vendor specifies an uncommon part to preserve its monopoly. We disagree with revising the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. We make every effort to identify potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware of any problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and repair of certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-service pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to OEM procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs—including parts, methods, techniques, and practices—at the revision levels specified in Revision April 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as parts approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. We expect that such parts might be found to be acceptable alternatives. An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator should include that information in its request. Operators should request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order to limit schedule disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Identify Other Test Equipment JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the MPD and that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL No. 28-AWL-18 would require using loop resistance tester, part number (P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an AMOC to use other equipment. We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02 JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL states that Chapters 53-01 and 53-21 of the Boeing 767 AMM specify doing an inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that, according to Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains two limitations: maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and clamping, and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard wiring practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not necessary to inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank, unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are changed. We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third limitation: verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection for another 12 years. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: “An entry into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that are CDCCLs.” That sentence is located in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in their recording documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording document to call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs. We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate FAA principal maintenance inspector
(PMI)or pri ncipal avionics inspector (PAI), or governing regulatory authority. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Clarify the Approval of Service Bulletins ABX Air asks that we clarify whether a service bulletin will need to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, if a manufacturer publishes a service bulletin that modifies or repairs an affected component. If the modification or repair described in the service bulletin affects compliance with this AD, then the service bulletin will need to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 824 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Maintenance program revision 8 None $640 332 $212,480 Inspections 8 None 640 332 212,480 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-11-01 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15523. Docket No. FAA-2007-28388; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-163-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before April 22, 2006. Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after April 22, 2006, must already be in compliance with the airworthiness limitations specified in this AD because those limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those airplanes. Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(k)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of 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. Service Information Reference
(f)The term “Revision April 2008 of the MPD,” as used in this AD, means Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008. Maintenance Program Revision
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1; and except that the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-05 is 72 months. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” of Revision April 2008 of the MPD.
(2)Subsection E, “PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive, of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28, as identified in Subsection E of Revision April 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary
(h)Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” of Revision April 2008 of the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Table 1.—Initial Inspections AWL No. Description Compliance time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period 28-AWL-01 A detailed inspection of external wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-05 A special detailed inspection of the bulkhead fitting bond for the hydraulic line tank penetration Within 72 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-18 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-26 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank surge tank fuel level sensor to verify functional integrity Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision April 2008 of the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D622T001-9, Revision March 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision January 2007; Revision October 2007; or Revision March 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D622T001-9, Revision April 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10976 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0024; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-086-AD; Amendment 39-15526; AD 2008-11-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from multiple reports of cracks found in the skin, bearstrap, and/or frame outer chord in the hinge cutout areas of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6430; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2007 (72 FR 57890). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways, and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Add Optional Terminating Action for Certain Inspection Areas The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member United Airlines, concurs with the contents of the NPRM. United adds that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006 (cited in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information), does not require inspecting the hinge cutouts for cracks in the skin or bearstrap if an FAA-approved Boeing repair is installed. United requests that we revise the NPRM to include similar language. We partially agree. We agree that the inspections specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD may be terminated at areas repaired in accordance with Boeing 737-100/-200 SRM 53-30-3, Figures 20, 21, 31, or 32; or Boeing 737-300/-400/-500 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 5, 6, or 8; as applicable. Boeing concurs with this provision. We have added the provision in new paragraph
(i)of this AD, and re-identified subsequent paragraphs. But we do not agree that a nonspecified previously installed repair—even one issued by Boeing and approved by the FAA—is acceptable as a terminating action, unless the repair is properly evaluated as it relates to this AD. If a repair (or other modification or alteration) prevents an operator from accomplishing any action of this AD, then that operator must request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)(14 CFR section 39.17). Paragraph
(j)of the final rule provides operators the opportunity to request approval of specific repair configurations as terminating action. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,437 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, per inspection cycle, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average hourly labor rate Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost 13 to 14 $80 $1,040 to $1,120 1,055 $1,097,200 to $1,181,600. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-11-04 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15526. Docket No. FAA-2007-0024; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-086-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from multiple reports of cracks found in the skin, bearstrap, and/or frame outer chord in the hinge cutout areas of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of 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. Repetitive Inspections
(f)Except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, do external detailed, low frequency eddy current, high frequency eddy current, and high frequency eddy current rotary probe inspections, as applicable, for cracks in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD. Do not exceed the applicable repetitive interval for the previous inspection, as specified in the service bulletin as Option A or Option B. Repair any crack before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications
(g)Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, specifies a compliance time after the release date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(h)Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, specifies contacting Boeing for information about installing an optional preventive modification that would terminate the repetitive inspections specified in this AD, this AD requires that any terminating action be done by using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD.
(i)The inspections specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD may be terminated at areas repaired in accordance with Boeing 737-100/-200 SRM 53-30-1, Figures 20, 21, 31, or 32; or Boeing 737-300/-400/-500 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 5, 6, or 8; as applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(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 an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who 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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11118 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0048; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-276-AD; Amendment 39-15527; AD 2008-11-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Based on some recent in-service findings for fluid ingress and/or inner skin disbond damage on rudders, AIRBUS decided to introduce some further structural inspections to specific rudder areas. This type of damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the rudder. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3656). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Based on some recent in-service findings for fluid ingress and/or inner skin disbond damage on rudders, AIRBUS decided to introduce some further structural inspections to specific rudder areas. This type of damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the rudder. For the reasons stated above, this AD requires the accomplishment of a thorough inspection program [a one-time inspection and repetitive inspections for damage of the rudder] by ultrasonic and/or t[h]ermographic methods, compared to the inspections already required by Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-0066, issued on 24 March 2006 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-07-13] as a precautionary measure, in order to verify the structural integrity of the rudder. The corrective actions include reporting both positive and negative findings to Airbus, doing a temporary repair, and contacting Airbus for repair instructions and doing a permanent repair. The compliance times for doing the repairs range from before further flight to within 4,500 flight cycles after doing the inspection, depending on the inspection type and the configuration of the airplane. The repetitive inspection intervals range from 1,200 flight cycles to 5,000 flight cycles, depending on the inspection type and the configuration of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Reduce the Compliance Time The Allied Pilots Association
(APA)requests that we reduce the compliance time to do the initial inspections specified in the NPRM from “500 flight cycles or 6 months” to “before further flight.” The APA states that it is unclear why any grace period is given for doing the inspections; the APA notes that statements by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and damage sustained during an earlier accident that resulted in destruction of the rudder and damage to the vertical fin due to an unknown quantity and type of damage, indicate the urgency of the inspections. The APA states that the affected rudders have been inspected only by visual means and have not been inspected by an effective means such as ultrasonic, infrared, and other sophisticated penetrating inspection methods. The APA concludes that the rudders subject to this AD are in unknown condition and at risk of an in-flight incident. We do not agree with reducing the compliance time. Airbus has analyzed its data in order to calculate the “500 flight cycles or six months” compliance time. The analysis included a review of previous inspections of the rudders that partially checked the affected area and no detectable disbond was found. In developing the compliance time for this AD action, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of inspecting the fleet during the compliance time, and the availability of required parts. In addition, we have coordinated with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community. We have determined that the “500 flight cycles or six months” compliance time ensures an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. No change is necessary for this AD in this regard. Request To Exempt Certain Airplanes The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of one of its members, American Airlines, requests that airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6015 has been accomplished be exempted from the requirements of the NPRM. American Airlines states that airplanes on which Airbus Modification 08827 has not been incorporated in production have rudders in the part number series A55471500 (which are subject to the requirements of the NPRM). American Airlines states that Modification 08827 is a modification that applies only to the rudder. American Airlines notes that the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6015 allows the installation of a post-modification 08827 rudder and therefore, airplanes on which Modification 08827 has not been incorporated in production may have a post-modification rudder. We acknowledge that Airbus Service Bulletins A300-55-6015, Revision 02, dated February 23, 2004; Revision 03, dated March 28, 2007; and Revision 04, dated November 14, 2007 specify procedures to do a modification that allows a post-modification 08827 rudder to be installed. However, we do not agree that a change to the applicability of this AD is necessary. An airplane on which a post-modification 08827 rudder is installed is not subject to this AD. The applicability of this AD specifies that only airplanes on which rudder part number (P/N) A55471500 series is fitted are subject to the AD. Airplanes fitted with a post-modification 08827 rudder will have a rudder part number other than P/N A55471500. No change has been made to this AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 123 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $216,480, or $1,760 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this 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. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-11-05 AIRBUS:** Amendment 39-15527. Docket No. FAA-2008-0048; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-276-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective June 25, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)The proposed AD supersedes AD 2006-07-13, Amendment 39-14540. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to AIRBUS Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all serial numbers, on which rudder Part Number (P/N) A55471500 series is fitted, except for those airplanes on which AIRBUS modification number 08827 has been incorporated in production. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 55: Stabilizers. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Based on some recent in-service findings for fluid ingress and/or inner skin disbond damage on rudders, AIRBUS decided to introduce some further structural inspections to specific rudder areas. This type of damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the rudder. For the reasons stated above, this AD requires the accomplishment of a thorough inspection program [a one-time inspection and repetitive inspections for damage of the rudder] by ultrasonic and/or t[h]ermographic methods, compared to the inspections already required by Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2006-0066, issued on 24 March 2006 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-07-13] as a precautionary measure, in order to verify the structural integrity of the rudder. * * The corrective actions include reporting both positive and negative findings to Airbus, doing a temporary repair, and contacting Airbus for repair and doing a permanent repair. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 500 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a special detailed one-time inspection in the areas of rudder hoisting points and trailing edge screws, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2045 or A300-55-6044, both Revision 01, both dated December 20, 2007, as applicable.
(i)If no damage is found, within 30 days after the inspection or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report to Airbus using Appendix 1 or 2, as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2045 or A300-55-6044, both Revision 01, as applicable.
(ii)If any damage is found, within the timescale(s) indicated in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2045 or A300-55-6044, both Revision 01, as applicable, report to Airbus using Appendix 1 or 2, as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2045 or A300-55-6044, both Revision 01, as applicable, to get further instructions for repair. Accomplish the repair within the timescale(s) indicated in, and in accordance with, the instructions given in paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a), as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2045 or A300-55-6044, both Revision 01, as applicable.
(2)Within 500 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a special detailed inspection along the rudder Z-profile, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or A300-55-6043, both Revision 01, both dated December 3, 2007, as applicable. For airplanes identified as Configuration 01 in the service bulletins, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,400 flight cycles. For airplanes identified as Configuration 02 in the service bulletins, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. For temporary repair along the rudder Z-profile for both airplanes identified as Configurations 01 and 02, refer to paragraph 3.C.(1) of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or A300-55-6043, both Revision 01, as applicable.
(i)If no damage is found, within 30 days after the inspection or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report to AIRBUS using Appendix 1 or 2, as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or A300-55-6043, both Revision 01, as applicable.
(ii)If any damage is found, verify the findings and apply all applicable corrective actions within the timescale(s) indicated in, and in accordance with instructions given in paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) or 3.B.(2)(a), as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or A300-55-6043, both Revision 01, as applicable. Within 30 days after the inspection or corrective action or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, submit a report to Airbus using Appendix 1 or 2, as applicable to the airplane configuration, of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044 or A300-55-6043, both Revision 01, as applicable. Note 1: For rudder configuration identification, refer to Appendices 3 and 4 of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2044, A310-55-2045, A300-55-6043, and A300-55-6044, as applicable to the airplane model and configuration.
(3)As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: No person shall install a P/N A55471500 series rudder on any airplane as a replacement, unless it has been inspected and repaired, as applicable, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletins A310-55-2045, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2007, and A310-55-2044, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletins A300-55-6044, Revision 01, dated December 20, 2007, and A300-55-6043, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; as applicable.
(4)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6044 or A310-55-2045, both dated July 23, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(5)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043 or A310-55-2044, both dated July 23, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0266, dated October 8, 2007, and the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Airbus Service Information Airbus service bulletin Revision Date A300-55-6043 01 December 3, 2007. A300-55-6044 01 December 20, 2007. A310-55-2044 01 December 3, 2007. A310-55-2045 01 December 20, 2007. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus service bulletin Revision Date A300-55-6043, including Appendices 1 through 4 01 December 3, 2007. A300-55-6044, including Appendices 1 through 4 01 December 20, 2007. A310-55-2044, including Appendices 1 through 4 01 December 3, 2007. A310-55-2045, including Appendices 1 through 4 01 December 20, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10978 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 234 [Docket No. RITA 2007-28522] RIN 2139-AA12 Revision of Airline Service Quality Performance Reports and Disclosure Requirements AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department) will collect additional data elements when flights are cancelled, diverted, or experience gate returns. The additional data elements will close data gaps and provide consumers a more accurate portrayal of arrival and tarmac delays. The previous NPRM was inadvertently published under RIN 2139-AA13. DATES: This rule will be effective on October 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bernard Stankus, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Telephone Number
(202)366-4387, Fax Number
(202)366-3383, or E-mail *bernard.stankus@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this rule, a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, and copies of the comments may be downloaded at *http://www.regulations.gov,* by searching docket RITA 2007-28522. Background The regulation (14 CFR part 234) requiring airlines that account for at least one percent of the domestic scheduled passenger revenues to submit monthly service quality performance reports was issued on September 9, 1987 (52 FR 34071). At that time, close to 40 percent of all flights were either late or cancelled. On-time performance reporting created a market-based incentive for carriers to improve their service and scheduling practices. The immediate result of this action was an improvement in carriers' on-time performance. For the remainder of 1987, the industry had an on-time arrival rate of over 74 percent. The Department added data elements to the reporting system in 1995 to enable the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)to identify choke points within the air traffic control system (60 FR 66722, December 26, 1995). Aircraft tail number, wheels-off time and wheels-on time gave the FAA information concerning aircraft routings through the air traffic control system and detailed data on tarmac and airborne delays. A tarmac delay is one that takes place on the ground, such as on the ramp or taxiway. In 1999 and 2000, airline delays increased dramatically with the increase in airline operations. Consumer complaints concerning flight delays increased by 58%. Section 227 of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) called upon the Secretary of Transportation to disclose to the public the source of delayed and cancelled flights. During this period, the Air Transport Association of America also petitioned the Department to report the causes of delays and cancellations. In August 2000, an Air Carrier On-time Reporting Advisory Committee was established to make recommendations on causal reporting. The committee recommended four delay causes—Air Carrier, Extreme Weather, National Aviation System, and Late Arriving Aircraft. In response to public comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking, a fifth cause, Security, was added to the final rule (67 FR 70544, November 25, 2002). The occurrence of lengthy tarmac delays in late 2006 and early 2007 once again focused public attention on the Department's collection of Airline Service Quality Performance Reports under 14 CFR part 234. In response to a media inquiry, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS)determined that the air carriers were inconsistent in reporting gate-departure times when there was a return to gate. Some carriers reported the initial gate departure time while others reported the “second” gate departure time. There are advantages and disadvantages with both methods. If an airline reports the first gate-departure time, the Department knows the interval between the time the aircraft was initially ready to depart and when the aircraft actually departed the airport (wheels-off time). However, the air carrier would be credited with an on-time departure when in reality the aircraft returned to the gate only to depart well after scheduled departure time. In this instance, the taxi-out time is also miscalculated, because the time the aircraft was parked at the gate waiting re-boarding is counted in the taxi-out time. Reporting the second gate-departure time does not fully represent the inconveniences that the passengers endured, by making it appear that they were on the aircraft for a much shorter duration before wheels-off (take-off) time. The gate departure time for carriers reporting the second gate departure time provides a more accurate assessment of departure delays, but does not account for tarmac delays occurring during the initial gate departure. A second data gap concerned the reporting of tarmac times for flights that were subsequently cancelled. For example these flights could spend hours on the tarmac waiting for storms to pass before being cancelled. Since airlines do not report any data on cancelled flights other than the fact the flight was cancelled, the amount of time passengers spent on the tarmac waiting for take-off is not recorded. A third data gap concerned the reporting of tarmac times at diversion airports for diverted flights i.e., a flight that landed somewhere other than the scheduled destination. Under the current reporting system, airlines do not report any data once a flight is declared diverted. Therefore, the amount of time spent on the tarmac at the diversion airport or at the original destination airport if the flight was resumed is not recorded. Comments The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to fill tarmac-delay data gaps on November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65230). A joint comment was received from the Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)and the Regional Airline Association (RAA), representing 18 air carriers currently reporting performance data. Other comments were received from Delta Air Lines, the National Business Travel Association (NBTA), the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), the Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, and from five private citizens/airline consumers. Of the five citizen comments, two stated that airlines should report all delays and publish their delay data on their Web sites, and one stated that the Department should fine air carriers $1 million for their first lapse in reporting. The issue concerning the displaying of on-time data on carrier Web sites is being addressed in a separate rulemaking titled Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233, Docket OST 2007-0022). The Department is limited by law on the assessment of fines to air carriers. Failure to file accurate and timely reports required by part 234 violates 49 U.S.C. sec. 41708, which subjects the carrier to civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each violation and $25,000 for each day any violation continues under 49 U.S.C. sec. 46301. Two other comments addressed issues in other aviation related rulemakings—Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233, Docket OST 2007-0022) and Oversales and Denied Boarding Compensation (final rule, 73 FR 21026). Those comments were forwarded to the personnel coordinating those rulemakings. The last comment dealt with a specific lost/stolen baggage issue. That letter was forwarded to the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings for appropriate action. The Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights said all carriers operating aircraft with over 30 seats should be required to report delay data; and that international flights should be reportable. This issue is being addressed in the rulemaking titled Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections. Tracking Individual Passenger Delay NBTA was the only party to comment on whether the Department should track individual passenger delays. It stated: “It would be an inappropriate burden to require air carriers to create statistics for every contingency a flight might face. * * * There are too many passenger-specific scenarios that airlines should not be spending time tracking. For instance, a delayed passenger switching carriers on a connecting trip would require interfaces across corporate databases that do not exist. NBTA agrees * * * that capturing individual passenger delays on missing connections, cancellations or diversion, would be difficult and for little benefit. Also, * * * travelers would be wary about the federal government collecting information on their personal flight data. While NBTA recognizes the need to give personally identifying information for the purposes of national security; giving that same information for the purposes of tracking delays is unreasonable.” The Department is not requiring air carriers to track and submit individual passenger data. Gate Returns A gate return occurs when the aircraft departs the boarding gate with passengers aboard and returns to a gate at that airport to deplane the passengers before the flight progresses to wheels-off at the departure airport. As stated previously, some carriers are reporting the first time the aircraft leaves the departure gate as the official gate departure time. Other carriers are reporting the last time the aircraft leaves the departure gate as the official gate departure time. Both methods of reporting produce misleading information for flights with multiple gate departures. The earlier gate departure makes it appear that the flight experienced an on-time departure and overstates taxi-out time. The reporting of the later departure time properly records a late departure but masks the total time the aircraft and passengers were sitting on the taxiway. Commenters agreed that the Department should correct this reporting inconsistency. ATA and RAA proposed that the last time a flight leaves the boarding gate be reported as the official gate departure time. NBTA states that “* * * a flight that is delayed and given a new departure time should not be considered on-time when it leaves at the subsequent time.” ATA and RAA also suggested that the Department add new data fields to collect the first time the flight left the boarding gate, the total time the aircraft was away from the gate at the departure airport, and the average time the aircraft was away from the gate at the departure airport. The Coalition for Airline Passenger Bill of Rights commented that the longest time period away from the boarding gate is more informative than the average time. They also recommended that the Department clarify that the carrier may only count a gate return if passengers are permitted to deplane. The Department will require air carriers to report the last time the aircraft leaves the boarding gate as the official gate-departure time. When there is a gate return, carriers will report new data fields to indicate the first time the aircraft left the boarding gate, the total time the aircraft was away from the boarding gate at the departure airport, and the longest single period of time that the aircraft was away from the boarding gate at the departure airport. Carriers will only report a gate return when passengers are permitted to deplane. The Department agrees that the longest time away from the boarding gate is more meaningful information to consumers than the average time and the final rule requires the reporting of the longest time. Cancelled Flights All parties concur that the Department should collect additional data when a flight is cancelled after the aircraft leaves the boarding gate but before the flight lifts off from the tarmac. “NBTA understands that in some cases it may be far preferable to have an extended tarmac delay than returning a flight to a gate, thus canceling or delaying the flight considerably * * * However, if a plane is cancelled after a tarmac delay, that fact needs to be taken into account when evaluating airline and airport performance. Current law does not provide this information and thus is not helpful to sophisticated buyers capable of evaluating trends over time.” Currently, the carriers report only the scheduled departure and arrival times and no actual times for cancelled flights. To capture tarmac times for these cancelled flights, carriers now will complete the actual gate departure field, and report the new fields developed for total time away from gate and longest single period away from gate. Diverted Flights The rulemaking component which received the most wide-ranging comments was the reporting of data pertaining to flight diversions. Delta Air Lines objected to reporting data on diverted flights. It claimed that the reported data from diverted flights will have little or no value to DOT for the purpose of setting policy. Delta said the new requirements will cost up to $500,000, and result in “no tangible benefit to passengers.” Delta asserts that most if not all diversions occur because of safety factors. “As such, no amount of analysis by DOT of the diversion data requested in this NPRM will change in the least bit the frequency and effect of diversions.” ATA/RAA supports the Department's desire to collect additional data on diverted flights but believes the data should be limited. ATA/RAA said that the structure of the Department's proposal to collect items at diverted airports would compromise the integrity of the fixed-length record format which is oriented to a single scheduled flight. They submitted examples where multiple diversion and turn backs would be difficult to capture under the proposal. Diversions account for 0.16 percent of all flights. “ATA believes that if the Department were concerned with information on such a small segment of operations, we should submit a proposal that would collect information for all possible scenarios.” The Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights said the data gaps in the on-time reporting system should be closed. The coalition said that a new set of codes to identify the cause of diversions should be implemented with a unique code to distinctly identify diversions caused by insufficient fuel. ASTA, the world's largest association of professional travel agencies, said it is “particularly important to include the data on diverted flights, which, while a small percentage of total flights, impact a large number of passengers. This data may be hard to collect, as the Air Transport Association
(ATA)claims, but every effort should be made to get it so the manner in which these events occur, and their impact on the public, can be better understood.” The Department agrees with the comments that, while the incidents of flights diversions are infrequent (16 out of every 10,000 flights), the impact on travel resulting from these relatively rare occurrences is noteworthy and is not adequately reflected in the Department's on-time reports. BTS' existing data understate the problem of extended tarmac delays because of lack of data created by gaps in the reporting system. After receiving numerous requests for information on tarmac delays, BTS decided to display a web page on tarmac delays of 3 hours or longer ( *http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/taxi_out_times/html/over_3_hours_airport_2007_12.html* ). The lack of data from cancelled and diverted flights has the potential to disguise a serious problem and block its resolution. Alternatively, the data could show that the problem is not as severe as some parties suggest. New carrier reports, identifying long tarmac delays on cancelled and diverted flights, would provide additional information on the extent of the problem. The Department also agrees with ATA that the reporting structure proposed in the NPRM would make it difficult, if not impossible, to report all possible flight scenarios, especially in the case of gate returns at diverted airports. As proposed in the NPRM, the Department will add five data elements to capture diversions. However, instead of adding the gate-arrival and gate-departure times at the diverted airport, the carrier will instead report total time away from gate at the diverted airport and the longest time away from gate at the diverted airport. This change will avoid reporting uncertainty when there are gate returns at diverted airports or when a diverted flight remains on the tarmac without proceeding to an airport gate. The five data elements will be repeated for each additional airport to which a flight is diverted. For on-time reporting purposes, a diversion is a non-stop flight that lands at a destination other than the original scheduled destination. Returns to the origin airport without arriving at a destination other than the origin airport are considered diverted flights. The new data elements to be reported to BTS are: Airport code of diverted airport. Wheels-on time at diverted airport. Total time away from gate at diverted airport. Longest time away from gate at diverted airport. Wheels-off time at diverted airport. If a flight terminates at a diverted airport, the carrier would not report Wheels-off time at the diverted airport. If a flight ultimately arrived at the scheduled destination airport, the carrier would complete the fields for Actual Gate Arrival Time (at scheduled destination) and Wheels-on Time (Actual). This reporting structure captures the data elements most desired by the Department and those consumer groups that submitted comments. The new reporting elements will provide information on:
(1)Where diverted flights landed,
(2)The total time the flights were on the ground away from the gates at the diverted airport,
(3)The single longest period of time that the passengers were in the plane, on the ground, and away from the gate,
(4)The total time spent at the diverted airport (wheels-off time minus wheels-on time),
(5)Time spent by passengers in the airport terminal, or in the aircraft at the gate, but with access to the terminal (wheels-off time minus wheels-on time minus total time away from gate at diverted airport),
(6)Whether the flight reached its final destination,
(7)The total minutes of delay for a diverted flight that reached its final destination. Also, the Department will be able to differentiate between diverted flights that reach their final destination from those that terminate at alternative airports. At this time, the Department will not require air carriers to report a code showing the cause for diverted flights. Since the issue was not raised in the NPRM, the air carriers and other parties did not have sufficient opportunity to comment. As ATA and Delta commented, diversions are unplanned, fairly rare occurrences which take place for a variety of reasons, including safety. The Department initiated collection of causal information in 2003 as a tool to spot problem areas within the aviation system and to identify the party best able to initiate corrective action to prevent or mitigate future incidences. For example, air carrier delays would be addressed by the airlines. National Aviation System delays would be addressed by the FAA and airports. Security delays would be the responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration. Additional codes on diverted flights would not provide the Department or the air carriers with relevant information that would prevent or lessen the incidences of future diversions. ATA asked a number of questions, including a request for clarification that the definition of on-time performance is not changing due to the new requirements. For clarity, we are addressing each of ATA's questions in the order asked. The definition of an on-time flight is unchanged. An on-time flight is still a flight that arrives at the destination gate less than 15 minutes after the published gate arrival time. In computing a carrier's on-time percentage, BTS divides total scheduled flights into the number of flights that arrived less than 15 minutes after their published arrival times. ATA Q 1. Will diversion data be reported in a single or multiple records? A 1. The Department prefers to keep the single-record format; however, that opinion would change if it is shown that a multi-record format is more efficient or produces better data. The Department invites carriers to participate in a working group to determine the technical details for submitting and processing this rulemaking's required data. The Department will also ask for volunteers for a pilot test of the new reporting requirements. Finally, the Department will issue a technical directive. ATA accurately states that a collaborative effort will provide DOT “the greatest likelihood that the new data elements will accurately account for information on all flight scenarios. Furthermore, this approach will ensure that all carriers will implement the same methodology to report accurately, reliably, consistently, and comparably.” ASTA requested to be a party to any industry work group to determine the data that would be collected. The decision on the data to be collected was based on the comments filed in Docket RITA 2007-28522. Meetings with air carriers are needed to review the technical aspects of the reporting requirements and to assure that the regulated community understands the new requirements. ATA Q 2. For flights that divert to an airport and do not reach a gate, how should the gate-arrival and gate-departure data fields be reported? A 2. From the comments received, the Department determined that the data need would be met by collecting total time on tarmac and longest time away from the gate instead of the gate-arrival and gate-departure fields for diverted flights. ATA Q 3. When a flight diverts, how should the flight data be represented? A 3. Carriers will report the following: Airport code of the diverted airport. Wheels-on time at diverted airport. Total time spent away from gate at diverted airport. Longest single period of time spent away from gate at diverted airport. Wheels-off time at diverted airport. If the flight terminates at the diverted airport, the carriers would report a “0”
(zero)in the wheels-off time field. If the flight departs the diverted airport on its way to the scheduled destination airport, the carrier would repeat these same 5 data fields. ATA Q 4. When a flight over-flies an intermediate stop and diverts, how should the flight be represented? A 4. Any time a non-stop flight segment is operated from its scheduled origin airport and lands at a place other than the scheduled destination airport, carriers will report the 5 data elements listed in Answer 3. ATA Q 5. When a flight originates at an unscheduled airport prior to the scheduled airport, how should the data be represented? A 5. Flights that truly originate at nonscheduled airports are not reported. However, if a carrier's flight #123—BOS-DCA-MIA was diverted to an alternate airport
(BWI)before landing at DCA, flight #123 BWI to DCA would not be considered an originating flight. The carrier would report the five data items for the diverted airport, and report the wheels-on and gate-arrival times at DCA for the BOS-DCA segment of flight #123. The DCA-MIA segment of flight #123 would be reported as normal. If, instead, flight #123 landed at BWI and operated directly to MIA, the BWI-MIA segment would not be reported. For the BOS-DCA segment, the carrier would still report the diversion data but it would have no time to report for wheels-off at BWI. Also, the DCA-MIA portion of flight #123 would be reported as a cancelled flight. ATA Q 6. When a flight extends beyond the scheduled destination airport, how should the data be represented? A 6. Using the flight #123 example, if the carrier announced to its passengers in advance that the flight would not land at DCA but would fly directly to MIA, both the BOS-DCA and the DCA-MIA segments would be reported as cancelled flights. But if it was determined that conditions at DCA made it impossible to land after departure from BOS, and the flight continued to MIA, the MIA landing would be considered a diversion of the BOS-DCA segment. The DCA-MIA segment would be reported as a cancelled flight. These reporting instructions are consistent with the historical reporting of cancellations and diversions. ATA Q 7. When a flight operates to an alternate airport, same city, how should the flight be represented? A 7. Flights that land at alternate airports are reported as diverted flights even when the alternate airport serves the same city. ATA Q 8. What happens when we have multiple operation issues? Such as a flight that is scheduled to operate Seattle-Boston, has a gate return, then leaves Seattle but diverts to Denver due to a medical emergency, then continues on, but again diverts due to weather in Boston, then at last makes it to Boston. Are we to have four different data records to account for the mishaps? A 8. The carrier would report the flight as follows: The last time the aircraft left the gate at the scheduled airport would be reported as the *Actual Gate Departure Time.* The time the aircraft originally left the gate would be reported as the *Gate Departure Time—First Time Out.* The carrier would complete the fields, *Total Time Away from Gate for All Gate Returns, including cancelled Flights* and *Longest Time Away from Gate for All Gate Returns, including Cancelled Flights* for the gate return at Seattle. The fields: *Airport code of the diverted airport; Wheels-on time at diverted airport; Total time spent away from gate at diverted airport; Longest single period of time spent away from gate at diverted airport; and Wheels-off time at diverted airport* would be completed for the landings at Denver and Newark. ATA Q 9. How is On-Time calculated since we left our scheduled origin airport and did not arrive at the scheduled destination? A 9. Flights that are scheduled and do not reach their scheduled destination are counted against the air carrier when computing the percentage of on-time arrivals; however, no minutes for late arrivals are computed for flights that do not reach their scheduled destinations. ATA Q 10. If you divert to another airport and report the times there, then continue to the original destination, what scheduled times do you use for On-Time performance calculations? A 10. On-time calculations are made by comparing the scheduled gate-arrival time at the scheduled destination with the actual gate-arrival time at the scheduled destination airport. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses Economic Summary Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order No 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may
(1)have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this final rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order No. 12866. The rule was reviewed by OMB. In addition, this rule is significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This Executive Order also requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. To the extent possible, this proposed rule meets these criteria. Cost/Benefits After a public meeting in June 2007 some carriers commented to BTS that the cost for programming to provide additional data on gate returns and cancelled and diverted flights could range from $10,000 to $60,000 per carrier. Delta Air Lines commented to the Docket that the reprogramming costs to capture information on diversions could be up to $500,000 for Delta alone. Since the carriers have the additional data that the Department is requesting, the Department believes the original cost estimate of $10,000 to $60,000 is accurate. Delta's estimate seems overstated because the new data elements are already available to the air carriers. Using the high end range of the original estimates, compliance with this rule could impose a one-time cost on the affected segment of the industry of $1.2 million. We believe that the rule will result in many unquantifiable benefits that exceed the costs. Consumers will have more accurate data for making their transportation selections. The public availability of these data may influence carriers to limit the length of the tarmac portion of delays (i.e., to reduce the amount of time that a delayed flight spends on the ground away from the gate). The FAA will have complete data on all long tarmac delays to use in its airport modeling. Aside from costs and benefits, it is important to note that H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Title IV—Air Service Improvements; Section 401), includes a provision that would require BTS to expand the reporting system to capture all operational data on gate returns and cancelled and diverted flights. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 This Act requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The carriers that are required to report Airline Service Quality Performance
(ASQP)data are all large air carriers with annual passenger revenues exceeding $600 million each. Thus, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Trade Agreements Act This Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to foreign commerce of the United States. ASQP data are for domestic operations only and have no impact on the foreign commerce of U.S. carriers. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This Act requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal government. This final rule imposes no expenditures on State, local or tribal governments. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The Department has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism implications. Paperwork Reduction Act The reporting burden associated with this final rule will be reviewed by OMB under the OMB Approval No. 2138-0041. The NPRM asked for public comments on costs and burdens. Based on carrier comments, the major burden increase will be reprogramming. We estimate a first-year increase in reporting burden of 900 hours per carrier or an industry increase of 18,000 hours. After the carriers have revised their systems, the reporting burden should increase slightly from 159 annual burden hours to 175 annual burden hours per carrier. Regulation Identifier Number A regulation identifier number
(RIN)is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda each April and October. The RIN Number 2139-AA12 contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda. The Final Rule List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter II as follows: PART 234—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709. 2. Section 234.4 is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraphs (a)(22) through (a)(29) as set forth below. b. By redesignating paragraphs
(b)through
(i)as paragraphs
(c)through (j), respectively. c. By adding new paragraph (b). d. By revising newly designated paragraph (c). § 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance.
(a)* * *
(22)For gate returns, first gate-departure time at origin airport
(23)Total ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at origin airport, including cancelled flights—actual minutes
(24)Longest time away from gate for gate return or cancelled flight
(25)Three-letter code of airport where diverted flight landed
(26)Wheels-on time at diverted airport
(27)Total time away from gate at diverted airport
(28)Longest period of time away from gate at diverted airport
(29)Wheels-off time at diverted airport
(b)Repeat fields
(25)through
(29)for each subsequent diverted airport landing
(c)When reporting the information specified in paragraph
(a)of this section for diverted flights, a reporting carrier shall use the original scheduled flight number and the origin and destination airport codes except for item (25). Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2008. M. Clay Moritz, Jr., Acting Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [FR Doc. 08-1274 Filed 5-16-08; 12:00 pm]
Connectionstraces to 12
5 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 25
  • 14 CFR 121.370(a)
  • 14 CFR 234
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 121.1109
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 39.17
C.F.R.§ 91.403
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite1 CFR 51
Cite14 CFR 25
Cites 17 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.