Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes, 65642-65645 [2012-26670]

Download as PDF 65642 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 210 Tuesday, October 30, 2012 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2008–0615; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–352–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. AGENCY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require repetitive operational tests and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the previous NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by December 14, 2012. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:18 Oct 29, 2012 Jkt 229001 11.43 and 11.45, 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 proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 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. Examining the AD Docket FAA–2008–0615; Directorate Identifier 2007–NM–352–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32256). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary, according to a method approved the FAA. Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) Was Issued You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 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, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), we have received comments from operators indicating a high level of difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during maintenance operations. The new service information referenced in this supplemental NPRM addresses these issues. Comments Invited We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments received on the previous NPRM and the FAA’s response to each comment. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Relevant Service Information We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. This service information describes procedures for repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include isolating the cause of any leakage and repairing the leak. Comments E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM 30OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Request To Withdraw the Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) American Airlines (AAL) asked that we withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). AAL recommended that a detailed review of the applicable system safety assessment (SSA) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) be done for the fuel system on Model 757 airplanes. AAL stated that the fuel system, while similar in some design aspects to the fuel system on Model 737–400 airplanes on which the unsafe condition occurred, is sufficiently different that the probability of a similar failure is within the acceptable level of safety required for certification. AAL noted that there is a significant difference in the SSA and FMEA; specifically, all the wing fuel pump relays of the Model 757 airplane are powered by one leg of the three phase 115 volt alternating current (VAC) power provided to the respective pump, while the fuel cross-feel valve is powered by the battery direct current (DC) bus. AAL added that the wing fuel pump relays and fuel cross-feed valve are both supplied by DC bus power on Model 737 airplanes. Northwest Airlines (NWA) stated that we should explain what caused the failures that resulted in the previous NPRM, and noted that failure analysis could dictate a different action. We do not agree with the request to withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), because, together with the manufacturer, we have evaluated this issue and determined it to be an important safety concern. Although the fuel system on Model 757 airplanes differs with respect to the engine fuel feed system design, service data of transport category airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts have generally resulted from a common cause, such as fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently shut off the fuel supply to the engines, exposure to common environmental conditions, or engine deterioration on all engines of the same type. Successful in-flight restart of the engines is dependent on adequate fuel being supplied to the engines, solely through engine suction fuel feed. Deterioration of the fuel plumbing system can lead to line (vacuum) losses, reducing the engine fuel suction feed capability; therefore, directed maintenance is necessary to ensure this system is functioning correctly in order to maintain continued safe flight of the airplane. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:18 Oct 29, 2012 Jkt 229001 Request To Incorporate Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task Into the Maintenance Program Instead of Issuing an NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) AAL asked that instead of issuing an NPRM, a new or revised CMR task be issued for incorporation into the maintenance program. AAL stated that, since there is no modification or terminating action for the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), the test should not be mandated. AAL also stated that the requirements in the previous NPRM should not be addressed as an AD. AAL added that the CMR would demonstrate proof of analysis, and provide a best-fit solution for that analysis; i.e., an effective and feasible safety task, and the correct interval to match the effectivity of the task. We do not agree with the request to issue a new or revised CMR task. CMRs are developed by the Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee (CMCC) during the type certification process. The CMCC is made up of manufacturer representatives (typically maintenance, design, and safety engineering personnel), operator representatives designated by the Industry Steering Committee chairperson, FAA Aircraft Certification Office specialists, and the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs developed during this process become a part of the certification basis of the airplane upon issuance of the type certificate. We do not have a process for convening the CMCC outside of the type certification process; based on this, the CMR is not an option for replacing this AD. Therefore, if the airworthiness limitation items (ALIs) were not in the maintenance program at the time of initial certification, an AD is required to make the ALI task a required action. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Include Corrective Action Continental Airlines (CAL) asked that the related testing language specified in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be changed. CAL stated that it should specify correcting discrepancies before further flight if the engine fails the operational test. CAL added that the corrective actions should be done in accordance with the procedures in the ‘‘Right (Left) Engine Fails the Suction Feed Test’’ procedure in the Boeing 757 Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) 28–22–00/101. We agree with the request to include corrective actions in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 65643 of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)). Since the previous NPRM does not include corrective actions, we have changed paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to specify doing all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. Requests To Revise Compliance Time CAL and NWA asked that we extend the repetitive operational test interval required by paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). CAL stated that a re-evaluation of the proposed repetitive interval limit after doing the initial inspection should be done, since its service history has revealed no reported engine flameout events or related operational discrepancies. CAL asked that the repetitive interval be extended to repeating the inspection during a normal maintenance 2C-check or within 8,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. NWA stated that the previous NPRM does not indicate how the initial and repetitive intervals were determined. NWA asked that the repetitive interval be changed to up to 10,000 flight hours to fit the mandated tests into its maintenance program Ccheck. We do not agree with the requests that the compliance time be extended. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)), we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, affected operators may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to request an extension of the repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Requests To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of the Maintenance Documents British Airways (BA), CAL, and United Airlines (UAL) asked that we allow using later revisions of the maintenance documents, because they E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM 30OCP1 65644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules could be revised over time and would require frequent requests for AMOCs. We do not agree with the request. Allowing later revisions of service documents in an AD is not allowed by the Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of referenced service information as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Clarify if Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu of the Operational Test BA asked that we clarify that the engine fuel suction feed test procedure in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document is an option for performing the operational test in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). BA asked that we consider adding the engine fuel suction feed manifold leak-test procedure as an alternative procedure to performing the operational test specified in Section 28– 22–00 of the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). We agree to provide clarification. The manifold test (Task 28–22–00–710–801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28–22–00–710–802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed (i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. Therefore, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Include Warning Information wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) warning identification statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control requirement. CAL did not include any justification for this request. We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section NWA stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be changed. NWA stated that the cost of fuel is not included in the cost estimate and should be included due to the high cost of fuel. We acknowledge the commenter’s request. Although fuel is used during the operational test, we have not received data on the amount of fuel used during the test. In addition, fuel costs vary among operators. Therefore, we do not have definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, we have determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the safety benefits of the proposed AD. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Refer to Boeing 757 MPD, Section 6, Task 28–22–00–5D BA asked that the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) refer to the Boeing 757 MPD, which contains the repetitive test interval of 1C-check in the MPD task (6,000 flight hours/3,000 flight cycles/18 months). BA added that it currently performs the test at 24month C-check intervals, and has conducted the test on 71 airplanes since May 2006, with no failures identified. We do not agree to refer to the Boeing 757 MPD in this supplemental NPRM. As stated previously, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012, referred to as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions proposed in this supplemental NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. Request To Remove or Clarify Certain Language in Paragraph (f) of the Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) NWA asked that the last sentence in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be removed or clarified. NWA stated that the intent of that sentence is unclear, and is reiterated as follows: ‘‘Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedure or repeat test intervals will be allowed.’’ NWA added that it is standard practice that once an AD is issued, deviation procedures and intervals are not allowed unless approved by requesting an AMOC. We agree with the commenter that including the subject sentence is redundant; however, that sentence is included in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)) merely as a reminder for operators of standard practices. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard. FAA’s Determination We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). 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. Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) by proposing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 673 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD: ESTIMATED COSTS Action Labor cost Cost per product Operational Test .................. Up to 6 work hours × $85 per hour = $510 per engine, per test. Up to $2,040, per test ....... VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:18 Oct 29, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM 30OCP1 Cost on U.S. operators Up to $343,230, per test. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. Authority for This Rulemaking 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), (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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: 13:18 Oct 29, 2012 Jkt 229001 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 2008–0615; Directorate Identifier 2007– NM–352–AD. (a) Comments Due Date We must receive comments by December 14, 2012. (b) Affected ADs None. (c) Applicability This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. (d) Subject Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System. (e) Unsafe Condition This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane. 65645 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office. (i) Related Information (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917– 6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2012. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2012–26670 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (f) Compliance Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 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 do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–28A0131, dated May 4, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedures or repeat test intervals will be allowed. [Docket No. AD12–6–000] (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18 CFR Chapter I Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules: Notice of Staff Memorandum Take notice that the Commission staff is issuing a memorandum setting forth certain minor revisions to the Commission’s Natural Gas Pipeline regulations that may be appropriate to remove reporting requirements that may no longer serve their intended purpose. The memorandum was issued pursuant to the Nov. 8, 2011 Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules prepared in response to Executive Order 13579, which requested independent regulatory agencies issue plans for periodic retrospective analysis of their existing regulations. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM 30OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65642-65645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26670]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 65642]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM proposed 
to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed 
of the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. That NPRM 
was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 
airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, 
followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, 
and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This action revises that NPRM by 
proposing to require repetitive operational tests and corrective 
actions if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect 
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel 
system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, 
could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, 
and consequent forced landing of the airplane. Since these actions 
impose an additional burden over that proposed in the previous NPRM, we 
are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to 
comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by December 
14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
11.43 and 11.45, 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 proposed AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (phone: 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, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
suzanne.lucier@faa.gov.

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-2008-0615; 
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We 
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend 
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that 
would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM 
published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32256). That 
NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine 
fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if 
necessary, according to a method approved the FAA.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), we 
have received comments from operators indicating a high level of 
difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during 
maintenance operations. The new service information referenced in this 
supplemental NPRM addresses these issues.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 
2012. This service information describes procedures for repetitive 
operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, 
and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include 
isolating the cause of any leakage and repairing the leak.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM 
(73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments 
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

[[Page 65643]]

Request To Withdraw the Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)

    American Airlines (AAL) asked that we withdraw the previous NPRM 
(73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). AAL recommended that a detailed review of 
the applicable system safety assessment (SSA) and failure mode and 
effects analysis (FMEA) be done for the fuel system on Model 757 
airplanes. AAL stated that the fuel system, while similar in some 
design aspects to the fuel system on Model 737-400 airplanes on which 
the unsafe condition occurred, is sufficiently different that the 
probability of a similar failure is within the acceptable level of 
safety required for certification. AAL noted that there is a 
significant difference in the SSA and FMEA; specifically, all the wing 
fuel pump relays of the Model 757 airplane are powered by one leg of 
the three phase 115 volt alternating current (VAC) power provided to 
the respective pump, while the fuel cross-feel valve is powered by the 
battery direct current (DC) bus. AAL added that the wing fuel pump 
relays and fuel cross-feed valve are both supplied by DC bus power on 
Model 737 airplanes. Northwest Airlines (NWA) stated that we should 
explain what caused the failures that resulted in the previous NPRM, 
and noted that failure analysis could dictate a different action.
    We do not agree with the request to withdraw the previous NPRM (73 
FR 32256, June 6, 2008), because, together with the manufacturer, we 
have evaluated this issue and determined it to be an important safety 
concern. Although the fuel system on Model 757 airplanes differs with 
respect to the engine fuel feed system design, service data of 
transport category airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts have 
generally resulted from a common cause, such as fuel mismanagement, 
crew action that inadvertently shut off the fuel supply to the engines, 
exposure to common environmental conditions, or engine deterioration on 
all engines of the same type. Successful in-flight restart of the 
engines is dependent on adequate fuel being supplied to the engines, 
solely through engine suction fuel feed. Deterioration of the fuel 
plumbing system can lead to line (vacuum) losses, reducing the engine 
fuel suction feed capability; therefore, directed maintenance is 
necessary to ensure this system is functioning correctly in order to 
maintain continued safe flight of the airplane. We have not changed the 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Incorporate Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task 
Into the Maintenance Program Instead of Issuing an NPRM (73 FR 32256, 
June 6, 2008)

    AAL asked that instead of issuing an NPRM, a new or revised CMR 
task be issued for incorporation into the maintenance program. AAL 
stated that, since there is no modification or terminating action for 
the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008), the test should not be 
mandated. AAL also stated that the requirements in the previous NPRM 
should not be addressed as an AD. AAL added that the CMR would 
demonstrate proof of analysis, and provide a best-fit solution for that 
analysis; i.e., an effective and feasible safety task, and the correct 
interval to match the effectivity of the task.
    We do not agree with the request to issue a new or revised CMR 
task. CMRs are developed by the Certification Maintenance Coordination 
Committee (CMCC) during the type certification process. The CMCC is 
made up of manufacturer representatives (typically maintenance, design, 
and safety engineering personnel), operator representatives designated 
by the Industry Steering Committee chairperson, FAA Aircraft 
Certification Office specialists, and the Maintenance Review Board 
(MRB) chairperson. CMRs developed during this process become a part of 
the certification basis of the airplane upon issuance of the type 
certificate. We do not have a process for convening the CMCC outside of 
the type certification process; based on this, the CMR is not an option 
for replacing this AD. Therefore, if the airworthiness limitation items 
(ALIs) were not in the maintenance program at the time of initial 
certification, an AD is required to make the ALI task a required 
action. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Include Corrective Action

    Continental Airlines (CAL) asked that the related testing language 
specified in paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 
2008) be changed. CAL stated that it should specify correcting 
discrepancies before further flight if the engine fails the operational 
test. CAL added that the corrective actions should be done in 
accordance with the procedures in the ``Right (Left) Engine Fails the 
Suction Feed Test'' procedure in the Boeing 757 Fault Isolation Manual 
(FIM) 28-22-00/101.
    We agree with the request to include corrective actions in 
paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous 
NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)). Since the previous NPRM does not 
include corrective actions, we have changed paragraph (g) of this 
supplemental NPRM to specify doing all applicable corrective actions in 
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012.

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

    CAL and NWA asked that we extend the repetitive operational test 
interval required by paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, 
June 6, 2008). CAL stated that a re-evaluation of the proposed 
repetitive interval limit after doing the initial inspection should be 
done, since its service history has revealed no reported engine 
flameout events or related operational discrepancies. CAL asked that 
the repetitive interval be extended to repeating the inspection during 
a normal maintenance 2C-check or within 8,000 flight cycles, whichever 
occurs first. NWA stated that the previous NPRM does not indicate how 
the initial and repetitive intervals were determined. NWA asked that 
the repetitive interval be changed to up to 10,000 flight hours to fit 
the mandated tests into its maintenance program C-check.
    We do not agree with the requests that the compliance time be 
extended. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions 
specified in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of 
the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)), we considered the 
safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely 
accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the 
proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and 
allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for 
most affected operators. However, affected operators may request an 
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to request an extension of the 
repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph 
(h) of this supplemental NPRM by submitting data substantiating that 
the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not 
changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Requests To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of the Maintenance 
Documents

    British Airways (BA), CAL, and United Airlines (UAL) asked that we 
allow using later revisions of the maintenance documents, because they

[[Page 65644]]

could be revised over time and would require frequent requests for 
AMOCs.
    We do not agree with the request. Allowing later revisions of 
service documents in an AD is not allowed by the Office of the Federal 
Register regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. 
Affected operators may, however, request approval to use a later 
revision of referenced service information as an AMOC in accordance 
with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this supplemental 
NPRM. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Clarify if Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu 
of the Operational Test

    BA asked that we clarify that the engine fuel suction feed test 
procedure in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document is 
an option for performing the operational test in the previous NPRM (73 
FR 32256, June 6, 2008). BA asked that we consider adding the engine 
fuel suction feed manifold leak-test procedure as an alternative 
procedure to performing the operational test specified in Section 28-
22-00 of the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).
    We agree to provide clarification. The manifold test (Task 28-22-
00-710-801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-22-00-
710-802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive 
internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not 
simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed 
(i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. Therefore, we have not changed 
the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Include Warning Information

    CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical 
design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) warning identification 
statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of 
regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control 
requirement. CAL did not include any justification for this request.
    We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct 
communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated 
with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional 
measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have 
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    NWA stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous NPRM 
(73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be changed. 
NWA stated that the cost of fuel is not included in the cost estimate 
and should be included due to the high cost of fuel.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request. Although fuel is used 
during the operational test, we have not received data on the amount of 
fuel used during the test. In addition, fuel costs vary among 
operators. Therefore, we do not have definitive data that would enable 
us to provide a cost estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, we have 
determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the 
safety benefits of the proposed AD. We have made no change to the 
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Refer to Boeing 757 MPD, Section 6, Task 28-22-00-5D

    BA asked that the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) refer 
to the Boeing 757 MPD, which contains the repetitive test interval of 
1C-check in the MPD task (6,000 flight hours/3,000 flight cycles/18 
months). BA added that it currently performs the test at 24-month C-
check intervals, and has conducted the test on 71 airplanes since May 
2006, with no failures identified.
    We do not agree to refer to the Boeing 757 MPD in this supplemental 
NPRM. As stated previously, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 
757-28A0131, dated May 4, 2012, referred to as the appropriate source 
of service information for doing the actions proposed in this 
supplemental NPRM. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in 
this regard.

Request To Remove or Clarify Certain Language in Paragraph (f) of the 
Previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008)

    NWA asked that the last sentence in paragraph (f) of the previous 
NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008) be removed or clarified. NWA stated 
that the intent of that sentence is unclear, and is reiterated as 
follows: ``Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, 
no alternative procedure or repeat test intervals will be allowed.'' 
NWA added that it is standard practice that once an AD is issued, 
deviation procedures and intervals are not allowed unless approved by 
requesting an AMOC.
    We agree with the commenter that including the subject sentence is 
redundant; however, that sentence is included in paragraph (g) of this 
supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, 
June 6, 2008)) merely as a reminder for operators of standard 
practices. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this 
regard.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all 
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described 
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same 
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the 
previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 6, 2008). 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.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32256, June 
6, 2008) by proposing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel 
suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 673 airplanes of 
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this 
proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost             Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test...................  Up to 6 work hours x $85     Up to $2,040, per test  Up to $343,230, per
                                      per hour = $510 per                                  test.
                                      engine, per test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65645]]

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide 
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 
AD.

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 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 
2007-NM-352-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 14, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, 
-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on 
Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the 
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed 
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We 
are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel 
suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of 
total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine 
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced 
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions

    Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 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 do all 
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment 
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0131, dated May 
4, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. 
Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, 
except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative 
procedures or repeat test intervals will be allowed.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, 
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue 
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-
917-6590; email: suzanne.lucier@faa.gov.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26670 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P