Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes, 75009-75011 [E8-29256]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2008–0645;
Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–358–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by January
5, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model
707–100 long body, –200, –100B long body,
and –100B short body series airplanes; and
Model 707–300, –300B, –300C, and –400
series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B
series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of inservice occurrences of loss of fuel system
suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct failure
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
system, which could result in multi-engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Operational Test/Other Specified and
Corrective Actions
(f) Within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD: Perform an operational test
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
system, and perform all other related testing
and corrective actions, as applicable, before
further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin A3527, dated November 7,
2007. Repeat the operational test thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or
36 months, whichever occurs first.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Sue
Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6438; fax
(425) 917–6590, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–29257 Filed 12–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2008–0646; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–359–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 727 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier
proposed airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes.
The original NPRM would have
required performing an operational test
of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if
necessary. The original NPRM resulted
from a report of in-service occurrences
of loss of fuel system suction feed
capability, followed by total loss of
pressure of the fuel feed system. This
action revises the original NPRM by
reducing the compliance time for lowutilization airplanes and including
corrective actions that were
inadvertently omitted from certain
sections. The corrective actions are
inspecting and repairing or replacing
any leaking Gamah fittings with new
fittings, and inspecting and repairing
any major welded tube assemblies that
are leaking. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to detect and
correct failure of the engine fuel suction
feed capability of the fuel system, which
could result in multi-engine flameout,
inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the
airplane.
We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by January 5,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75009
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–
65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1,
fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221 or 425–227–1152.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue
Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6438;
fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2008–0646; Directorate Identifier
2007–NM–359–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
75010
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (the ‘‘original
NPRM’’) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an airworthiness directive (AD)
that would apply to certain Boeing
Model 727 airplanes. That original
NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on June 20, 2008 (73 FR 35093).
That original NPRM proposed to require
performing an operational test of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
system, and other related testing if
necessary.
Actions Since Original NPRM was
Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM,
we have learned that corrective actions
were inadvertently omitted from the
Summary section and paragraph (f) of
the original NPRM. The corrective
actions were identified in the relevant
service information section of the
original NPRM and include inspecting
and repairing or replacing any leaking
Gamah fittings with new fittings, and
inspecting and repairing any major
welded tube assemblies that are leaking.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. We
considered the comment received from
a single commenter.
Request To Change Test Interval for
Low-Utilization Airplanes
Boeing asks that we add a maximum
time interval of 3 years to the current
7,000-flight-hour repetitive test interval
specified in paragraph (f) of the original
NPRM. Boeing states that lowutilization airplanes may not meet the
7,000-flight-hour threshold for several
years.
We agree to change the compliance
time for repetitive tests. We have
determined that the compliance time for
the initial test should also be changed
based on the data received from the
manufacturer. The data provided by the
manufacturer also justify a change to the
repetitive test interval currently
specified in the original NPRM to
acknowledge that elapsed calendar time,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
as well as operational time, can affect
suction feed capability. We have
determined that changing the intervals
in terms of calendar and operational
time, as recommended by the
manufacturer, will ensure an adequate
level of safety for the affected fleet. We
have changed the compliance time for
the initial operational test specified in
paragraph (f) of this supplemental
NPRM as requested.
Request To Clarify Reason for the
Unsafe Condition
Boeing asks that we clarify the
description of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed
capability specified in the original
NPRM, which states that the proposed
AD results from reports of two inservice engine flameout events
operating on suction feed with
undetected air leak failures. Boeing
notes that there are no known reports of
any engine flameout-related events in
the Model 727 airplane fleet. Boeing
recognizes that undetected air leaks
could exist, and the maintenance
procedure is a proactive measure to
ensure engine flameout will not occur
due to air leaks while on suction feed
operation. Boeing is unclear as to the
incidents in question and only through
further investigation discovered that the
engine suction feed incidents did not
occur within the Model 727 airplane
fleet. Boeing asks that we clarify the
Summary, Discussion, and Unsafe
Condition sections, and ‘‘FAA’s
Determination and Requirements of this
Proposed AD.’’
We agree that the Summary and
Discussion sections and ‘‘FAA’s
Determination and Requirements of this
Proposed AD’’ could be clarified in the
supplemental NPRM as Boeing requests.
The inaccurate language which was
contained in the original NPRM is not
restated in the supplemental NPRM.
Therefore, no change to the
supplemental NPRM is necessary in this
regard.
Request To Clarify the Requirement for
Additional Testing
Boeing asks that we clarify the
requirement for additional testing of the
engine fuel feed manifold specified in
the Summary section. Boeing states that
this requirement would be better
described as performing corrective
action in case the engine suction feed
operational test is not successful. Boeing
asks that we change the second sentence
in the Summary section as follows:
‘‘This proposed AD would require
performing an operational test of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
system. If necessary, corrective actions
may be required, before further flight.’’
We agree with the request to clarify
the requirement for additional testing of
the engine fuel feed manifold. As
specified under ‘‘Actions Since Original
NPRM was Issued,’’ we have added the
corrective action language that was not
included in the original NPRM to this
supplemental NPRM.
Request To Allow Later Revisions of the
Referenced Service Bulletin
Boeing asks that we revise the original
NPRM to allow further revisions to the
Boeing Service Bulletin 727–28–80,
dated June 21, 1985 (referenced in the
original NPRM as the source of service
information for accomplishing the
specified actions). Boeing states that the
service bulletin may be revised over
time which would require frequent
requests for alternative methods of
compliance (AMOC).
We do not agree with the request.
This supplemental NPRM must be
consistent with FAA policy and Office
of the Federal Register regulations,
which do not allow references to the use
of ‘‘later revisions’’ of the applicable
service information in ADs. Therefore,
no change to the supplemental NPRM is
necessary in this regard.
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the Supplemental
NPRM
We are proposing this supplemental
NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined
an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. Certain changes
described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM. As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 709 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would
take 1 work-hour per product, per test,
to comply with this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of this proposed AD to the U.S.
operators to be $56,720, or $80 per
product, per test.
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
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, section 44701:
General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD
would not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This
proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2008–0646;
Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–359–AD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Dec 09, 2008
(a) We must receive comments by January
5, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Jkt 217001
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–29256 Filed 12–9–08; 8:45 am]
Applicability
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 727,
727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and
727–200F series airplanes, certificated in any
category.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of inservice occurrences of loss of fuel system
suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct failure
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
system, which could result in multi-engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
Operational Test/Other Specified Actions
(f) Within 7,000 flight hours or 18 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first: Perform an operational test of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and perform all other related testing and
corrective actions, as applicable, before
further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 727–28–80, dated June 21,
1985. Repeat the operational test thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight hours or
36 months, whichever occurs first.
Operator’s Equivalent Procedure
(g) If any discrepancy is found, and Boeing
Service Bulletin 727–28–80, dated June 21,
1985, specifies that certain actions (i.e., a
vacuum test of the fuel feed system) may be
accomplished using an operator’s
‘‘equivalent procedure’’ (with substitute test
equipment): The actions must be
accomplished in accordance with Figure 4 of
the service bulletin.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
The Proposed Amendment
§ 39.13
Comments Due Date
75011
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Sue
Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6438; fax
(425) 917–6590, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2008–0897; Airspace
Docket No. 08–AWP–9]
RIN 2120–AA66
Proposed Amendment of Class E
Airspace; Guam Island, GU and Saipan
Island, CQ
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
remove, rename and expand the Class E
airspace areas serving Guam
International Airport, Anderson AFB
and Saipan Island. Additionally, this
proposed action would revoke the
Saipan Island Class E surface area since
it is no longer required, and expand
other controlled airspace areas to
protect aircraft conducting instrument
approaches to Saipan International
Airport. The FAA is proposing these
actions to enhance the safety and
management of aircraft operations in the
vicinity of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
Comments must be received on
or before January 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone:
(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2008–0897 and
Airspace Docket No. 08–AWP–9 at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace
and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75009-75011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29256]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. The original NPRM would
have required performing an operational test of the engine fuel suction
feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. The
original NPRM resulted from a report of in-service occurrences of loss
of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss of
pressure of the fuel feed system. This action revises the original NPRM
by reducing the compliance time for low-utilization airplanes and
including corrective actions that were inadvertently omitted from
certain sections. The corrective actions are inspecting and repairing
or replacing any leaking Gamah fittings with new fittings, and
inspecting and repairing any major welded tube assemblies that are
leaking. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct
failure of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system,
which could result in multi-engine flameout, inability to restart the
engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by January 5,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000,
extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-
1152.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0646;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
[[Page 75010]]
aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. That
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2008
(73 FR 35093). That original NPRM proposed to require performing an
operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and other related testing if necessary.
Actions Since Original NPRM was Issued
Since we issued the original NPRM, we have learned that corrective
actions were inadvertently omitted from the Summary section and
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. The corrective actions were
identified in the relevant service information section of the original
NPRM and include inspecting and repairing or replacing any leaking
Gamah fittings with new fittings, and inspecting and repairing any
major welded tube assemblies that are leaking.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received from a single commenter.
Request To Change Test Interval for Low-Utilization Airplanes
Boeing asks that we add a maximum time interval of 3 years to the
current 7,000-flight-hour repetitive test interval specified in
paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. Boeing states that low-utilization
airplanes may not meet the 7,000-flight-hour threshold for several
years.
We agree to change the compliance time for repetitive tests. We
have determined that the compliance time for the initial test should
also be changed based on the data received from the manufacturer. The
data provided by the manufacturer also justify a change to the
repetitive test interval currently specified in the original NPRM to
acknowledge that elapsed calendar time, as well as operational time,
can affect suction feed capability. We have determined that changing
the intervals in terms of calendar and operational time, as recommended
by the manufacturer, will ensure an adequate level of safety for the
affected fleet. We have changed the compliance time for the initial
operational test specified in paragraph (f) of this supplemental NPRM
as requested.
Request To Clarify Reason for the Unsafe Condition
Boeing asks that we clarify the description of in-service
occurrences of loss of fuel system suction feed capability specified in
the original NPRM, which states that the proposed AD results from
reports of two in-service engine flameout events operating on suction
feed with undetected air leak failures. Boeing notes that there are no
known reports of any engine flameout-related events in the Model 727
airplane fleet. Boeing recognizes that undetected air leaks could
exist, and the maintenance procedure is a proactive measure to ensure
engine flameout will not occur due to air leaks while on suction feed
operation. Boeing is unclear as to the incidents in question and only
through further investigation discovered that the engine suction feed
incidents did not occur within the Model 727 airplane fleet. Boeing
asks that we clarify the Summary, Discussion, and Unsafe Condition
sections, and ``FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed
AD.''
We agree that the Summary and Discussion sections and ``FAA's
Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD'' could be clarified
in the supplemental NPRM as Boeing requests. The inaccurate language
which was contained in the original NPRM is not restated in the
supplemental NPRM. Therefore, no change to the supplemental NPRM is
necessary in this regard.
Request To Clarify the Requirement for Additional Testing
Boeing asks that we clarify the requirement for additional testing
of the engine fuel feed manifold specified in the Summary section.
Boeing states that this requirement would be better described as
performing corrective action in case the engine suction feed
operational test is not successful. Boeing asks that we change the
second sentence in the Summary section as follows: ``This proposed AD
would require performing an operational test of the engine fuel suction
feed of the fuel system. If necessary, corrective actions may be
required, before further flight.''
We agree with the request to clarify the requirement for additional
testing of the engine fuel feed manifold. As specified under ``Actions
Since Original NPRM was Issued,'' we have added the corrective action
language that was not included in the original NPRM to this
supplemental NPRM.
Request To Allow Later Revisions of the Referenced Service Bulletin
Boeing asks that we revise the original NPRM to allow further
revisions to the Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985
(referenced in the original NPRM as the source of service information
for accomplishing the specified actions). Boeing states that the
service bulletin may be revised over time which would require frequent
requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC).
We do not agree with the request. This supplemental NPRM must be
consistent with FAA policy and Office of the Federal Register
regulations, which do not allow references to the use of ``later
revisions'' of the applicable service information in ADs. Therefore, no
change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.
FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 709 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per
product, per test, to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,720, or $80 per
product, per test.
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
[[Page 75011]]
detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
359-AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) We must receive comments by January 5, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-
100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any
category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, which could result in multi-engine flameout, inability
to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.
Compliance
(e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
Operational Test/Other Specified Actions
(f) Within 7,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an operational test
of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and perform all
other related testing and corrective actions, as applicable, before
further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985. Repeat
the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000
flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
Operator's Equivalent Procedure
(g) If any discrepancy is found, and Boeing Service Bulletin
727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985, specifies that certain actions
(i.e., a vacuum test of the fuel feed system) may be accomplished
using an operator's ``equivalent procedure'' (with substitute test
equipment): The actions must be accomplished in accordance with
Figure 4 of the service bulletin.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6438; fax (425) 917-6590, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-29256 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
