Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes, 75009-75011 [E8-29256]

Download as PDF 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact 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 http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion 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 http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact 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 http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the 
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly 
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    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